Taste is subjective, Beauty is not
Introduction — A Difficult Thesis
For years I have found myself defending a position that often sounds provocative in contemporary discussions about art:
“Taste is subjective, beauty is not.”
This argument almost always meets resistance, especially when discussed with people whose education and professional life are rooted almost exclusively in the world of technique.
In a technocratic culture, beauty is often perceived as a luxury — something decorative, secondary, perhaps even frivolous. Functionality, efficiency and technical performance dominate the conversation.
The only legitimate question seems to be:
does it work?
Within this framework, aesthetic judgment appears almost suspicious. Beauty becomes subjective preference, a matter of personal taste, irrelevant to serious discourse.
Yet this assumption collapses the moment we examine more carefully what beauty actually is, how humans perceive it, and why certain forms and environments consistently attract us across cultures and across time.
1 — The Problem
Beauty reduced to opinion
In contemporary discourse the statement “beauty is subjective” is repeated almost as a cultural reflex.
The phrase functions as a conversation stopper: if beauty is purely subjective, then there is no reason to discuss it seriously. No criteria can exist, no analysis is necessary, and aesthetic debate becomes pointless.
But this position confuses two very different concepts:
taste and beauty.
Taste refers to personal preference.
Beauty refers to qualities that provoke consistent aesthetic responses among human beings.
When these two concepts are collapsed into one, aesthetic discourse disappears.
2 — The Misunderstanding
Taste is subjective
Taste truly is subjective.
Individuals prefer different styles, different atmospheres, different artistic languages. One may prefer baroque exuberance, another minimalist clarity.
But this variation occurs within a much deeper framework of shared human perception.
Taste can also be cultivated.
The history of art, architecture and music demonstrates that aesthetic judgment evolves through exposure, education and cultural understanding. What we call good taste is not merely personal instinct, but a form of refined perception.
Without this refinement, taste remains purely instinctual.
It reacts to novelty, stimulation or familiarity, but it cannot evaluate deeper qualities such as harmony, proportion, symbolic meaning or craftsmanship.
In that sense, taste without aesthetic education can easily become bad taste — not because preferences differ, but because the capacity to recognize aesthetic qualities has not yet developed.
Taste should guide us through different forms of beauty, not abolish the concept of beauty itself.
3 — Evolutionary Foundations
Why humans respond to beauty
If beauty were entirely subjective, we would expect aesthetic preferences to vary randomly across individuals.
But empirical evidence suggests something very different.
Across cultures and societies, humans tend to respond positively to similar visual patterns and environmental qualities.
Research in evolutionary aesthetics and environmental psychology has shown that humans consistently prefer environments containing:
-
symmetry
-
fractal patterns
-
organized complexity
-
natural elements
-
curvature
-
visible craftsmanship
These features are deeply connected to the concept of biophilia — the innate human affinity for patterns found in nature.
Our brains evolved long before cities or architecture existed. For hundreds of thousands of years human survival depended on recognizing environmental signals related to safety, fertility and resource abundance.
Philosopher Denis Dutton described beauty as “nature’s way of acting at a distance.”
Certain visual qualities attract us because they historically signaled beneficial environments.
Symmetry suggests health and stability.
Fractal patterns mirror natural vegetation structures.
Balanced complexity stimulates cognitive engagement without overwhelming perception.
In this sense, beauty is not arbitrary.
It reflects the deep interaction between human cognition and environmental structure.
Beauty in the Built Environment
These principles also appear clearly in architecture and urban design.
Why do millions of people travel across the world to visit cities such as Rome, Paris or Barcelona? (or Turin…!)
Why are certain buildings constantly photographed while others are ignored?
The answer cannot simply be familiarity.
If popularity alone explained aesthetic attraction, people would flock equally to anonymous office parks, highway overpasses or monotonous housing blocks. They do not.
Instead, visitors consistently gravitate toward places that contain aesthetic qualities humans intuitively respond to: proportion, detail, ornament, natural integration and spatial harmony.
Studies have even shown measurable correlations between the perceived beauty of environments and indicators such as well-being, satisfaction and health among inhabitants.
Beauty is therefore not a decorative luxury.
It directly influences human experience.
4 — Taste and Culture
The education of perception
If humans share certain aesthetic predispositions, why do aesthetic judgments still vary so widely?
Because perception is shaped by culture.
Education, exposure and intellectual frameworks influence how individuals interpret aesthetic signals.
Roger Scruton argued that beauty involves a judgment of taste — a form of evaluation that can be learned and refined.
This process is visible in many disciplines. Architecture students, for example, often develop aesthetic preferences different from those of the general public after years of theoretical training.
But here a curious phenomenon emerges.
Studies have shown that architecture students sometimes begin to prefer buildings that the general public consistently finds unattractive. This phenomenon, sometimes called the design disconnect, reveals a tension between professional aesthetic ideology and the deeper perceptual responses shared by most people.
The existence of taste does not eliminate beauty.
It simply mediates our relationship with it.
Immanuel Kant and the strange universality of taste
Long before contemporary debates about subjective taste, the philosopher Immanuel Kant confronted the same paradox in his Critique of Judgment (1790).
Kant argued that judgments of beauty are not objective in the scientific sense — they are rooted in a subjective feeling of pleasure. Yet, when we say that something is beautiful, we do not speak as if we were merely reporting a personal preference. We speak as if others ought to agree.
For Kant, this strange feature reveals something important: aesthetic judgment is subjective in origin, but it carries a claim to universality grounded in the shared structure of human perception. Beauty is not a measurable property of objects, but neither is it a purely private opinion. It arises from the common faculties through which human beings experience the world.
In other words, when we argue about beauty, we are not merely comparing preferences. We are appealing—often implicitly—to a shared human sensibility.
5 — The Modern Collapse
When functionality replaces meaning
The deeper issue may lie in a much broader transformation of modern society.
Since the Industrial Revolution, human culture has increasingly organized itself around technical efficiency.
Questions that once structured philosophical and artistic reflection gradually disappeared.
Instead of asking:
-
Is it true?
-
Is it just?
-
Is it beautiful?
modern societies increasingly ask only: does it work?
Philosopher Martin Heidegger described this transformation with remarkable clarity.
Heidegger and the Technical World
Heidegger observed that modern humanity increasingly relates to the world through what he called Zuhandenheit — the mode of manipulability.
Objects are no longer encountered primarily as meaningful presences but as instruments to be used, optimized and controlled.
Technology, in this sense, is not merely a collection of machines. It is a way of revealing the world.
As Heidegger wrote, technology is indeed a form of unconcealment — a way in which nature reveals its potentials. Yet this process contains a profound ambivalence.
In technological systems, humans risk becoming functionaries of the apparatus itself.
The danger is not simply that the world becomes technical. The deeper danger is that technical thinking becomes the only available form of thought.
Heidegger called this calculative thinking — a mode of thought that constantly measures, evaluates and optimizes.
It asks about efficiency, advantage and output.
But it rarely asks about meaning.
When calculative thinking dominates, alternative forms of reflection begin to disappear.
Beauty, poetry and contemplation are tolerated only as ornaments of the technical apparatus, not as genuine alternatives to it.
6 – The Consequence
In such a world, aesthetic judgment slowly loses legitimacy.
Beauty becomes a decorative afterthought — something optional, subjective, perhaps even embarrassing.
The built environment reflects this shift.
Cities increasingly fill with structures designed purely according to economic and technical parameters: efficiency, cost reduction, maximized floor area, optimized circulation.
But the human mind did not evolve to inhabit purely functional environments.
When aesthetic considerations disappear, the environment gradually becomes psychologically impoverished.
7 — Closing Idea
Beauty as a cognitive compass
Beauty is not a luxury reserved for artists.
It is one of the ways human beings orient themselves in the world.
Our perception of beauty reflects deep cognitive and biological structures that guide attention, preference and emotional response.
Taste may differ from person to person.
But the existence of taste does not eliminate the existence of beauty.
When societies abandon the question of beauty entirely, they risk creating environments that function efficiently while slowly eroding the quality of human experience.
A civilization that stops asking whether things are beautiful may eventually stop asking whether they are meaningful at all.