for - quote - taste - who can't develop it - perfectionists - key insight - finding our own unique voice - adjacency - creativity - learning from others - synthesis

quote - taste - who can't develop it - (see below)

• the one thing I can't teach is taste,
  • and the one predictor I have of the people who will never develop it are
    • the ones who are perfectionists.
• Because they're filtering their-- perfectionists that filter their perfection through the feedback of others.

comment - We we are overly dependent on others - it becomes difficult to develop our own - taste or - style - To develop our own unique taste is a balancing act - we are influenced by others by digesting the work of others - but then we must synthesize our own unique expression out of that - A useful metaphor is tuning a string - too loose and it can't work - neither if it is too tight - it snaps

adjacency - between - creativity - learning from others - synthesis - adjacency statement - our creativity depends on a balance of - learning from others - synthesizing what we've learned into something uniquely ours

for - subjectivity of taste

comment - This is why subjectivity of taste in art is not reconcilable with absolute truth - Taste is relative - There's no application of logic of right and wrong - What tastes bad to me - can taste good to you

Anthony Costello. (2022, February 24). The risks of cognitive symptoms lasting at least 12 MONTHS were much higher in the infected group. 4.8x higher for fatigue, 3.2x for brain fog, 5.3x for poor memory, and an incredible 51x for altered taste and smell. We need data on children, but it could easily be similar. (17) https://t.co/JC1qYyW2Xc [Tweet]. @globalhlthtwit. https://twitter.com/globalhlthtwit/status/1496957266016313348

Shelton, J. F., Shastri, A. J., Fletez-Brant, K., Stella Aslibekyan, & Auton, A. (2022). The UGT2A1/UGT2A2 locus is associated with COVID-19-related loss of smell or taste. Nature Genetics, 54(2), 121–124. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-021-00986-w

Eric Topol. (2022, January 14). Much less loss of smell and taste with Omicron, but more sore throat than with Delta https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1046623/Technical-Briefing-34-14January2022.pdf @UKHSA symptom data from ~175,000 Omicron and ~88,000 Delta cases https://t.co/DIGRGkoXa9 [Tweet]. @EricTopol. https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1482029245580808192

Weir, E., Reed, D., Pepino, M. Y., Veldhuizen, M., & Hayes, J. (2021). Massively collaborative crowdsourced research on COVID19 and the chemical senses. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/z36xe

Blomberg, B., Mohn, K. G.-I., Brokstad, K. A., Zhou, F., Linchausen, D. W., Hansen, B.-A., Lartey, S., Onyango, T. B., Kuwelker, K., Sævik, M., Bartsch, H., Tøndel, C., Kittang, B. R., Cox, R. J., & Langeland, N. (2021). Long COVID in a prospective cohort of home-isolated patients. Nature Medicine, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01433-3

Marshall, M. (2021). COVID’s toll on smell and taste: What scientists do and don’t know. Nature, 589(7842), 342–343. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00055-6

Yom-Tov, E., Lekkas, D., & Jacobson, N. C. (2021). Association of COVID19-induced Anosmia and Ageusia with Depression and Suicidal Ideation. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qy2vu

Roland, L. T., Gurrola, J. G., Loftus, P. A., Cheung, S. W., & Chang, J. L. (2020). Smell and taste symptom‐based predictive model for COVID‐19 diagnosis. International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology, alr.22602. https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.22602

What is false taste? Does this mean your taste isn't attuned to the collective, or that you are literally falsifying what you believe to be aesthetically pleasing?

What an odd juxtaposition.

So, taste becomes a way to understand what has the most mass appeal, and so helps us to understand the best way to appeal to a particular audience?

Right--beauty is about a relationship to a thing or an opinion about a thing, not about the thing itself. Beauty has as much to do with the viewer as it does with the beautiful object. Recognizing beauty or having taste involves a network of actors in a given context. Does Hume believe that it is our job to consolidate these recognitions into one general rule for recognizing?

It's Latin.

De gustibus non est disputandum

This reminds me of C.S. Lewis "The Taste of the Other" https://www.amazon.com/Taste-Other-Social-Ethical-Thought/dp/1573832685

I originally read practice in this context as exposure, the idea that if you just study a lot of literature you'll develop a taste for the good stuff (basically the dominant model of lit studies). But now I'm wondering if Hume saw practice as actually doing the art. Like, instead of just studying poetry, I actually went out and wrote some poetry. My taste, then, would develop through a combination of external and internal experience; it would be practice of both input and output.

I seriously thought we were talking about taste in the context of food. I mean I guess it's not unrelated.

The list seems to cater to taste (cf. Hume) and to variety. After visiting the newly built agora, there will be "some time of Refreshment" before moving on to legislative matters and affairs of the court; then we "may Rest [our] Selves" before hearing charitable orations, and so on. If one cares to hear something in particular, one may do so or take alternative pleasures ("if you regard not what Women say", "if you like not their Pastime").

The selections seem a carefully chosen buffet or perhaps a finely planned 10 (or whatever number)-course meal, with each element serving to compliment but also counter-point those that come before and after.

In seeing these particular examples of orations, perhaps we shall take away a sense of the general?

The inverse of the "Whopper Virgin" approach.

Although I would say the next few lines have a nice parallel with Canguilhem tracing how anatomical understandings of human body parts, though generally a constant of the last 6000+ years, "evolve" from new technologies that we can apply to our own bodies.

Making a lot of money? National pride? Belief in the superiority of liberal capitalism? A historical perspective that focuses on the difficulty the American military had mobilizing in the 19th and early 20th century? A sincere fear of the outside world and belief that strong military spending can protect them?

I may be missing Vatz point, but I don't think Bitzer would define "positive modification" as an absolute unquestioned good, but that someone has to have some cause for desire. The MIC has a load of very obvious reasons behind it, reasons I might not personally agree with or be persuaded by, but it has a whole bunch of really obvious "positive modifications" that can be found.

Could connect this with Ebert's earlier-discussed approach of rating a movie in terms of "what it's trying to be." Denies the idea of a linear continuity of quality with art, which sits at the heart of Blair's notions of taste.

Another connection with Blair, here. Though while Blair identifies a universal nature to attune to, Spencer sees a number of natures, but they are still naturally correct for their particular circumstance.

Much like Hume's discussion on the various forms of taste

"Taste, in the sense in which I have explained it, is a faculty common in some degree to all men." - Blair

"True criticism is a liberal and humane art. It is the offspring of good sense and refined taste. It aims at acquiring a just discernment of the real merit of authors." - Blair

Like Hume's individual "prejudiced" by previous taste-making experiences?

So part of the importance of discussing taste, judging works of art, developing standards of taste and individual taste seem to tie into the project of rhetoric as we've read so far this semester: to come closer to the Truth.

Hume and Blair both value exercising senses/faculties in order to develop taste, and though this seems hard to argue with, long-term employment in using your eyes or your hands can result in things like loss of vision or arthritis. Does this in anyway factor into taste? Individual taste can become refined, but can it develop in other ways, good or bad?

So it sounds like writing, speeches, teaching, other forms of communication are supposed to elevate individual taste or establish some sort of standard in taste.

Taste is different for everyone versus taste is universal, but everyone perceives it differently?

The "voices of others"? Surely not.

Surely we are urged to follow in the steps of Roger Ebert (at least when critiquing movies). To find kernels of value in artistic works, to appreciate them, to learn from them, ought that not be the goal of a critic?

We ban Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn from schools! Is there really no artistic merit of which we ought discern?

So is he suggesting that a higher power (in his belief, as a Christian man, God) decides who has "better" taste than others? That taste is a predetermined concept controlled by the Divine?

According to Blair, taste is a nice mixture between emotions/feelings and reason. He also recognizes that both are important for an individual to achieve satisfaction.

Perhaps we can link this to Campbell's idea of experience molding us and our ideas?

This is kind of a wander, but I wonder if you can run this backwards? Like, if you're looking for genius, don't look at the masterful orator, look for the girl who has lacking mechanical skill but still pulls it off. It won't be top-tier work, but she's able to demonstrate a natural attention to the universe's current of Eloquence.

Kind of connecting this section with our microresponse prompt. Taste would be rhetorical in that the taste of the audience would determine how an orator would appeal to an audience and how that audience would respond to the orator.

How one develops his/her taste, in addition to practice. Comparison is the next step to achieving superior "taste."

Again, this begs the question, "What is good taste, really?"

But who determines those who have a superior taste? I assume knowledge has much to do with it, but diverse cultural backgrounds lead to different views of what is considered "tasteful." Two individuals could be equally educated in the same field and have wildly different standards of what is tasteful based solely on their background, culture, etc. Interesting to note that their rhetorical environment influences the way in which they think, albeit not actively, about societal standards and values.

They are, in other words, not black boxes.

This is the black box that Hume hopes to unpack.

Links to Hume on taste.

Strange, distilled and aged wines do not normally have bubbles formed once poured. The only thing I can think of that would be like a wine and bubbles is champagne. Is this intentionally added?

French wine I would assume, it would be something relate back to the "vintage" he mentions that is from somewhere South of England notable for its wine. So he is drunk currently.

To taste like "Flora" or "country green" I think of how a strong smell can have a taste sit at the back of your mouth. I would not expect either of these to taste very good, at the most bitter. Perhaps that connects to the alcohol of the wine.