Scott examines three "model organisms" for understanding aesthetic taste: vexillology (flag design), movie plot holes, and tech company naming, using each to explore different aspects of what makes something tasteful or tasteless. Longer summary

Scott continues his exploration of aesthetic taste by examining three simpler examples that reveal underlying dynamics. First, he discusses Reddit vexillology and the debate over flag design rules, showing how supposedly timeless aesthetic principles are actually obsolete historical artifacts. Second, he considers movie plot holes and whether caring about internal consistency (like Ultra-Man's blaster range) represents genuine taste or just nitpicking. Finally, he analyzes tech company names like 'Infinita' versus 'Vitalia', arguing that the former represents an 'easy win' that feels manipulative - similar to how AI-generated poetry strings together cliches. Throughout, Scott grapples with the tension between rejecting elitist aesthetic rules while still acknowledging that some things (like cliche-heavy writing) genuinely feel tasteless. Shorter summary

Scott argues that aesthetic discussions wrongly conflate sensory delight with novelty and context, and that modern art's obsession with being part of a historical conversation has led to the abandonment of beauty in favor of mechanical innovation. Longer summary

Scott argues that discussions of artistic taste conflate multiple distinct concepts (sensory delight, novelty, pattern recognition, context, etc.) and that this conflation prevents clear thinking. He uses a parable about restaurant criticism to argue that we should isolate the direct aesthetic experience from contextual factors like novelty and provenance, similar to how medical trials control for placebo effects. He criticizes modern art and literature for prioritizing novelty and historical conversation over genuine beauty or transformation, using examples like the Angelus Novus painting (which inspired beautiful commentary despite being visually unimpressive) and the constraints on contemporary novels. Scott acknowledges the value of artistic innovation but argues that when artists can't successfully marry beauty with novelty, they should stick to traditional forms rather than produce endless variations of transgressive art that adds nothing meaningful to the conversation. Shorter summary

Scott presents and analyzes seven different analogies to understand whether sophisticated artistic taste is truly superior to popular taste, ultimately concluding it's most like a system of arbitrary rules with post-hoc justifications. Longer summary

Scott examines different analogies for understanding artistic taste and whether sophisticates' judgment of art can be considered superior to popular taste. He presents seven different analogies: taste as physics (based on objective truths), as priesthood (arbitrary rules), as priesthood with semi-fake justifications (like fashion rules), as genuinely justified rules, as desensitization (like porn), as fashion signaling, and as grammar (arbitrary but felt deeply). After analyzing these analogies, Scott argues that artistic taste is most like a priesthood with semi-fake justifications, citing evidence like taste's rapid changes over time, disagreement among experts, political influences, and failed blind tests. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander discusses reader comments on why modern architecture differs from older styles, exploring economic, cultural, and artistic explanations. Longer summary

Scott Alexander summarizes and responds to comments on his previous post about modern architecture. The comments cover various theories for why modern architecture looks different from older styles, including economic factors, changes in artistic tastes, cultural shifts, and technological developments. Scott engages with these ideas, sometimes agreeing and sometimes disagreeing, while exploring the broader implications for art, culture, and society. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores the 'Tartaria' conspiracy theory to discuss broader shifts in aesthetic preferences, examining potential explanations and their implications for society. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the 'Tartaria' conspiracy theory, which posits that modern architecture is inferior to older styles due to a hidden societal regression. He uses this to discuss broader shifts in aesthetic preferences across various art forms. The post examines several potential explanations for this shift, including changes in wealth signaling, elite tastes, religious influences, labor costs, and the split between high art and mass culture. Scott concludes by reflecting on the importance of understanding these changes, as they relate to broader questions of class, signaling, and how intellectual and cultural elites relate to society at large. Shorter summary