There is a tremendous mess with art and music. Many people say: «If it doesn’t make me feel something, it’s no good». But others reply: «No, art is more than just emotions, it has to have quality». Who is right? Let’s look at examples we all know.

«I don’t like it, so it’s bad» (and why that’s not always true).

Imagine this: you love Bad Bunny, but your uncle says it’s «rubbish» and that good music is Mozart. Who is right? Pierre Bourdieu, who studied this dilemma in depth, said in his book «The Distinction» that «what we like depends very much on how we were brought up and what we were taught to value». In other words, your uncle is not more cultured for listening to classical music, nor are you uneducated for dancing to reggaeton.

We know that taste is not something static. It moves with such a powerful dynamic that what you like today, you may dislike tomorrow. And then you like it again five months later. In short, one shouldn’t qualify art with one foot on a tightrope.

Without getting into unnecessary arguments, is there any science that tells you why Reparto as music is to be scorned by academics? No, there isn’t. But it is true that there are ways of making music that are very facile, repetitive, that don’t connect, and are considered cult.

You can broaden your knowledge as I did, about this, by reading in time the book, «The Distinction» (Bourdieu) «It explains to you why what you like is not only ‘taste’, but also education and environment.»

«If I don’t understand it, is it art?»

Sometimes we see a weird painting or hear a song that looks like «noise» and think, «This is not art.» But Boris Groys, in his book «Power of Art», says that «you don’t have to like art to like it to be important». Think of Rosalía: some people hate her modern flamenco, but others say it’s great. Who decides? Nobody. Art is like spicy food: some people burn it, others love it.

In his book «Poder del arte» (Groys) he makes a formidable analysis that might interest you. Of course, if you are one of those who dedicate a little time to the reading he teaches. And Groys tells us, «It opens your eyes: art is not always beautiful, but it can be powerful».

«Success does not equal quality (but neither does the opposite).»

«Despacito» was a worldwide hit, but many musicians say it’s «simple». In contrast, a Radiohead song may be super-complex, but no one dances to it at a party. Walter Benjamin, a philosopher, wrote in «The Work of Art in the Age of its Technical Reproduction» that «art is now for everyone, not just for the rich». In other words, if people like it, it fulfils its function, even if it is not «fine».

Here the question of taste is fundamental, and of the culture to which we owe ourselves. But we already know that the latter, besides being what it is, the trace of our passage on Earth, can be a weapon of domination. Minorities leading the majorities. We also know that taste is not an aesthetic category. But still, people think with their hearts, with simple and mediatic emotion.

As I love books and everything they teach us, I propose you now, «The work of art in the age of its technical reproduction» (Benjamin), where he tells us, «It explains why art today is more democratic (and why some people hate it)».

So what does it gain?

In the end, as John Berger said in «Modes of Seeing»: «Art is not for experts to decide, it is for people to live with». So relax: if you like reggaeton, rock or jazz, don’t let anyone tell you it’s «not art».

Written by Vasily MP