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