Having great taste is one of the most important characteristics of designers, programmers, and managers alike. Being able to discern what’s good from that which is bad. Which of the thousands of possible little details are key to make whatever you’re working on just right.
The problem with the concept of taste is that it’s so ephemeral. One view of the world is that some people just have it and others don’t. Either you’re lucky enough to be born with it and you’ll be forever awesome or you’re a tasteless sod doomed to create crappy work. I don’t subscribe.
I think taste is mostly about developing an eye for the details that matter and that it’s absolutely something that can be learned. The best way to learn what details that matter is to examine the details of great and not-so-great work and contrast and compare.
It requires determination and dedication to develop an eye, to develop your taste, but it’s absolutely possible. Some may be predisposed, but anyone willing to be a student can get there. So what are you waiting for?
andy
on 20 Oct 08So, who gets to say what is “good” taste? What if the things that I find tasty, don’t exactly agree with what others find tasty?
DHH
on 20 Oct 08Taste is always subjective, but you can aggregate it to find resonance. If your coworkers, managers, or customers find the work you do tasteless, then either your level or type of taste is not useful for the constituency.
Sean
on 20 Oct 08I think it comes down to your definition of “taste”. To me, taste is an ability to recognize and appreciate (and sometimes create using) aesthetic principles. So yes, it is something you can learn. However, what is aesthetically pleasing is completely determined by societal and personal values, and thus “taste” is very subjective and time-limited.
The enigma of this whole discussion is that I cannot explain why certain people consistently demonstrate “good taste”, despite the rapidly changing aesthetic values of society. However, I do have a theory—those with “good taste” are often the trend-setters, rather than the trend-observers; and most of them are artists in some way, creators who are iconoclasts and who do not get wide appreciation immediately.
Tim Burley
on 20 Oct 08aggregating taste to find resonance is one sure fire way to find the safest middle ground. If I find something that 10% of the world loves and 90% hates with a passion, I know I’m onto something.
isar21
on 20 Oct 08That´s the bit most of the “design education” misses out. I would call it active seeing. A good designer always knows why a design is good or not, and he is able to explain his judgment. As a result his able to go beyond personal likes or dislikes of certain styles or cliches.
brad
on 20 Oct 08I think the last time I posted on SVN, it was on this very topic. Only at that point, it was Jason who posted, and said that taste is either something you’ve got or you don’t. All I can say is … well said David! I’m someone who likes to believe in the potential of people to better themselves through consistent, determined effort, and taste is no exception. Thanks for the inspiration!
Jason Z
on 20 Oct 08So how does Jason Fried fit into this theory? He seems to have pretty great taste but no formal training in art, design, IA, etc. Do you think his taste comes naturally (maybe he just missed his calling early on) or do you think he really worked to develop it?
Mimo
on 20 Oct 08You can learn it. Even Giorgio Armani learned it. From his mother. I have photo book where you see her and i have to admit: She got style.
Style is breaking the rules of the system while knowing the rules. So you break them with style. Be extraordinary.
Means: You get a jacket which is extraordinary. Cool but, Cool colour. It is not like the rest. It is different. But it is accepted.
Chris
on 20 Oct 08I have to agree with David. I think “taste” is really something that is developed. I think some people have better taste than others simply because it’s more important to them. I enjoy looking at different ways to display graphics, color schemes, and overall fit and finish of a design. I also do my best to ensure that the design actually works for its intent along the way. Which is why I think someone can be a great designer but poor at making it look “pretty”. That’s where I think taste comes in.
You can learn a lot just by looking at examples on Pattern Tap or following some of your favorite designers/developers/illustrators. Just like beer, taste is acquired.
DHH
on 20 Oct 08I don’t think developing an eye has much correlation to formal training. I have very little formal training in programming, but feel that I have a fairly well-developed eye for good code. Jason has no formal training in design, but has still managed to develop a very good eye for great design by being curious and interested in doing so.
A
on 20 Oct 08Oh by the way a very tasteful post. Talking about taste puma shoes is bad taste David!
Igor Asselbergs
on 20 Oct 08For me the quality of a design can be split into two categories: Personal taste (1) which cannot be discussed because it is inherently subjective, and (2) all the rest which CAN be discussed because it is objective. Take a red button in a red web page wich is required to stand out. You may have a personal taste for red, but it is objectively clear that a red button will not stand out in the red page. Blue or yellow, on the other hand, will. In this case it’s about contrasts. You can learn how contrasts work and acquire ‘taste’ for it. See: http://www.livelygrey.com/2008/04/red_buttons.html In my experience the objective part of the design is far more prominent than the subjective part. So in that sense, taste MAY actually get acquired. But when it comes to personal taste, there’s no such thing as good or bad taste. It’s just personal. I hate it when design gurus get prized for their impeccable taste. Their personal taste isn’t any better than Joe Sixpack’s.
Colin
on 20 Oct 08Seems like “good taste” is just another way of saying you’ve got the fundamentals of something nailed down to an intuitive level.
To get to this point, you’ve got to learn it from somewhere, whether it’s formal training, or casual learning from experiences.
Sean Iams
on 20 Oct 08It’s sorta like building your “sniffy sniff” (Gary Vaynerchuk reference). You gotta be curious, you’ve gotta be dedicated, and it takes a bit of effort.
http://garyvaynerchuk.com/2008/07/31/how-you-can-build-your-sniffy-sniff/
RS
on 20 Oct 08I’ll disagree with DHH on this one. I don’t think you can teach taste because taste ultimately comes down to sharing a point of view. Taste is more like friendship or relationships than anything else. Either you understand what makes another person tick, or you don’t. Either you “get it” together or you don’t. That’s how taste works.
It’s true that the more you are exposed to something and the more you focus on it, the better you get. But getting better at something doesn’t mean your tastes are changing. And going from ‘untrained’ to ‘proficient’ by teaching yourself also doesn’t mean your taste has changed.
Jim Coudal has a nice quote on this. He advices that you hire on taste, not on technical skill. Anyone can be taught the mechanics. It’s the shared vision and friendship that really count.
DHH
on 20 Oct 08Some of the most interesting friends I have were people I didn’t necessarily think I’d get along with when we first met. I don’t think neither friendship nor vision is static. People change, learn, and evolve.
I absolutely think that people can be persuaded to adopt new views of the world and with that new levels of taste.
Mike Hagstrom
on 20 Oct 08But what were those people that can be persuaded to begin with? Nothing.
People with good taste in their own opinon cannot be pursuaded by others.
It is an agreement at first sight. If you don’t agree with the other person than that’s that… however if you can pursuade them into what you believe, then you perhaps don’t have good taste to begin with.
andy
on 20 Oct 08The funny thing is, we’re all right. No one can say what is “good taste” because it is subjective. It’ll never be this way or not. It’s not a boolean event. What is bad taste today, may become the good taste of tomorrow. And if I can find the niche for my taste, then I’ve one. Isn’t that sort of what 37Signals is all about? Sometimes what everyone else thinks is just perfect, really sucks.
Rainer
on 20 Oct 08I’d like to share some ressources about taste. Check ‘em out if you want.
The concept of taste has been thought through by Scottish philosopher David Hume in his paper “Of the Standard of Taste” published in 1757. (link) I think his account is still relevant. David Hume is great anyway.
Also, there has been a wonderful discussion about taste on the BBC radio 4 program In Our Time recently. (link)
Have fun
David C
on 20 Oct 08Good taste is not something you are born with. You have to earn it. It starts with being a passionate creator. When you build something with passion (be it a computer program, or painting) your passion will show in the final design. You can step back and see all the love and care you put into creating that something. When you can appreciate your own work, then you can appreciate the work of others. You will be able to recognize when someone creates a product with passion, or when they create a product with disinterest.
Lauren
on 20 Oct 08The most amazing thing about “good taste” is that everyone thinks they have it. Kind of like a good sense of humor.
To one degree or another many things, including taste, are a matter of opinion. For example, I think I have pretty good taste in food (heh-heh, there’s my awesomely good sense of humor again), but I know that I have lousy taste in apparel. And sometimes I try! I really do. I obey the basic rules of proportion, symmetry and color balance. But when I look at myself in the mirror, I am indistinguishable from the housekeeping staff at Howard Johnson’s.
And then the self-doubt spreads. What if every design choice I make is like this? How is one to know? Ask the design police? Keep checking in at HoJo’s?
JD
on 20 Oct 08I agree with DHH here. You can learn anything so long as you have the desire to. That’s the key: MOTIVATION.
Grant
on 20 Oct 08I wonder if an even better way to say this might be: acquire awareness.
You can make a decision to be proactively aware – to open your eyes and start seeing details that you never saw before. It’s easy to debate whether taste is innate or can be learned, but awareness – paying attention on a new level – that can be learned.
Scott
on 21 Oct 08I agree with DHH and RS/Jim Coudal. Taste/Design can be learned and acquired. The question i wonder is how long does it take to learn taste versus learning the technical mechanics? Is it easier to learn taste or learn the intricacies of the job at hand?
It’s all relative I think. For some skills, Taste might be easier to learn while for other tasks Technical mechanics can be learned.
As for Web and Graphic Design, I think true taste: creative, innovative implementation over-rides the technical merits of photoshop, css, xhtml, rails, ruby, etc. Some people do have “it”, some people do not have “it” and take a while to learn “it”. It can be learned, but it definitely takes concerted effort and determination. Even more so than the technology, then again, technology comes easy to me. So, who am I to talk?
Quinn Weaver
on 21 Oct 08Great post. I heartily agree. I’ve spent the last ten years consciously honing my taste in code (not to mention design, UI experience, customer relations…) After all that time, there’s always more to learn.
PS: I just want to point out that ephemeral does not mean ethereal or insubstantial. It means short-lived. I’ve seen this misuse elsewhere on the interwebs—time to stop this meme.
google
on 23 Oct 08google
David C
on 23 Oct 08I agree that taste is acquired. Taste has nothing to do with what you are born with, its determined by what you are interested in.
When you take the time to learn about something your choices on what you think are good and bad become more rational and objective.
Think about things like cigars, scotch, automobiles and stereo equipment. Those that get nerdy and learn about the subjects have better taste because they know what’s good. It’s the difference between a connoisseur and a dilettante.
Take Chip Foose for example. One of the best hot rod designers right now. He makes cars look awesome yet, he has zero personal style. No fashion sense. Looking at how he styles cars, you can’t say that he doesn’t understand aesthetics. I’d say it’s just that he’s not interested in fashion.
David C
on 23 Oct 08Oh and regarding people with what you would call bad taste in design… In my experience I’ve seen that these people haven’t taken the time to learn about graphic design. They spend most of their time reading Photoshop and Flash tutorials rather than design books. More concern is given to the tool than to such things as composition, typography, color theory, art direction, etc. So I wouldn’t say they have bad taste, I’d just say they just are not interested enough in graphic design theory.
Martial
on 24 Oct 08On the issue of “good” versus “bad” taste, may I recommend What Is Art For? by aesthetic anthropologist Ellen Dissanayake? Bennet Reimer (professor of music at Northwestern) summarizes her thesis:
“Dissanayake concludes that an essential characteristic of the arts is that they … ‘make special.’ Other ways of expressing this idea are that the arts exist to make the seemingly ordinary extraordinary, or to make the seemingly insignificant significant.“
I find this notion of “making special” compelling as a description of large swathes of human behavior. All humans have within themselves the desire to make their surroundings special. We fill our lives and our spaces (and our designs) with things, each of which is special, each of which carries some meaning for us. If we are lucky – or determined – we can even work on things and in ways that make special.
We can fill our life with items or accents that represent themselves solely as themselves but none of which fit one with another. That space (or life or piece of work) will be special to us, but will strike many others as confusing – as demonstrating bad taste. Or we can attempt to create a space which is itself a significant form, considering the impact of individual pieces on the whole and how the the elements hold together.
Both are legitimate ways of expressing our aesthetic imperative, but they are differently experienced by others. One is directed toward those others, an outward invitation, while the other is directed inward and toward an audience of one. (It is true that the latter may well resonate with some others, while the former may be the result of an intensely personal vision. So it goes.)
This discussion is closed.