Is it O.K. to joke about the taste of others? I like to tell folks that disagree with my taste that they have not the ability to appreciate fine art. I guess it's bad form to be jackin' up words and sentences, and just generally debasing grammer. I find a util in it:~ I've noticed that peoples tastes tend to say something about what they value. I can't dig the macabre. Seeing sick stuff I find displeasing, and don't enjoy being displeased in this way. I know a guy listens to demonic metal, alot stuff gets him riled. Though I don't think any group related tendencies fall into quo, folks are unique. So someone who has the doctrine of authoritarianism, must not be a strict lover of greeko-roman stylings. A math lover not need adore archimedes. It is sometimes the case that what one takes in he distributes as well.

     What of aesthetics, that is people who live this way, and their monasticism? I'm trying to imagine some monks poppin' up at the door saying "Hi, we would like to tell ya-bout the way, and get some dinner please." So are american monastics just street beggers, or is it church's that cleared the market on begging, long run. At least church's ask, the state takes.  Some nice works of art come from church's, good beverages as well. I artisticly admire the discipline of monks, of many faiths that is. 

     So is it the case that the best guy at this axiological field, is the one with the best BS.? The composition and message of the work lie in juxto-to the whatever. Or is the case since we all have unique scales of value, one must try to waiver the content of whatever skill for being of it's contribution to emotion or skill, development, uniqueness, etc. If one fellow digs it, perhaps somewhere out there another will. Must one quantify, it's gross because... It feels nice because? Can there be someone to objectivly order preferance, maybe in a slave society where choices are scarce. 

And, I didn't see a thread on art, or aesthetics.  

re:  

Artwork and the Subjective Theory of Value

 Nice story. To me a good artist is one who has mastered his skill, or one that is able to convey his message best.

 

 

    
 

  "They investigated and also describes the cultural function of art in terms of its artistic and vivid realities, as well as the creative process of the artist"~Wikepedia

This helped me.

From that...

The position of science toward the other values of acting men is no different from that which it adopts toward aesthetic values. Here too science can do no more with respect to the values themselves than to record them and, at most, classify them as well. All that it can accomplish with the aid of "conception" relates to the means that are to lead to the realization of values, in short, to the rational behavior of men aiming at ends. History and sociology are not fundamentally different in this respect. The only distinction between them is that sociology, as a theoretical science, strives for universally valid laws of rational behavior, whereas history, employing these laws, presents the temporal course of human action.

I think in general all consumers goods are the product of human labor and not just have aesthetic value, but are artisans crafts one way or another good and  bad.