Taste nor be tested

We all taste, food, flavours, we distinguish, but there is one taste which is we can not taste, and this is the

taste of identity, the taste of ‘persona’ the laws behind taste and so on. In certain ways, our taste is enclosed in an
confined space, around us, or around things, and in which we get into contact with them. Taste is separated,
completely different from each other, it could be truly personal, but in fact there is impossible to be truly personal,
because we all share the same public space. It could be a possibility in having a living alone in your own world, where
you do not get distracted by the others, which have taste as well, and the there becomes the mix, of the taste.

In certain ways I would like to believe that taste formed by inter-articulations provided by the influences
between people, and their order, their way of thinking, of living, and so on, under the name of codes of living, in order
to have the experience of the taste.

These inter-articulations, are defined by as Bourdieu said ‘the habitus’ which in their order ‘the emergence of
consumer culture is characterized by its increasing stylization, and that the production, exchange and use of customer
goods is increasingly structured by the perceived expressive or symbolic aspects of goods.’ (Lury, 1996:80)

There is a social logic which connects all those together into a whole, defined by multiple choice of spaces,
behaviours, events, concepts, persons.

This world, based on certain codes, more likely to to make our living, not because we want to live this way,
because we pick this way. I will incorporate the ‘habitus’ of our living , as our living space, in order to maintain, and
equilibrate the order, and disorder, the chaos and perfection.

We all have our taste, we like things, we dislike things, we pick things and so on. There is no need in, to
argue that the taste does not exist, because we having part of it every-day but the chances are, to have all different
taste. If we take apart the “taste” as a whole and decompose it, we get to negotiate the limits of the whole, or bettering
the limits of the whole. Taste can be infinite. We can start adding, or subtracting elements from the whole taste and
create new formations for the taste, completely different from the ones which we know at the moment and we create
the new codes, which goes in relation with order, disorder, chaos and perfection. It it obvious that those codes are
making our living and they are generating contrasts of formations between those codes, by creating patterns between
them two, as a living opposition, as magnetic fields, north pole and south pole, or whatever we want to name them, they remain the same .

“Taste classifies, and it classifies the classifier. Social subjects, classified by their classifications, distinguish
themselves by the distinctions they make, between the beautiful and the ugly, the distinguished and the vulgar, in
which their position in the objective classifications is expressed or betrayed.”

If the taste classifies, in its social formations, the classifier, this system could classify almost anything from its
social hierarchy. But as Bourdieu said social class has its own classifiers, remains upon identity to classify the whole
taste by its definition in its system. Remains to negotiate the limits of the classifier which is identified by
patterns(relative arrangements of codes, generated by their relation thought the space, connections).

As first instance, let’s take as examples, patterns as “how you dress”, “ how you eat” , “ how many knifes you
need in order to eat” , “ how many times you wash your face” and so on. Those are to be considered the ‘habitus’ of
your personal/intimate.


Let’s take as another example the ‘habitus’ of an roller-coaster. To get to know the roller-coaster pattern you
exchange a certain amount of goods, and you learn the code, or in real world, you experience the code. Same thing
applies to restaurants bars, pubs, work places, and whatever it is outside of our personal ‘habitus'(patterns as love,
care, hunger, fear) which runs in relation with our personal identity.
These two different types of ‘habitus’ [outside(public spaces) or inside of your personal ‘habitus’] have their certain
patterns, creating a relative opposition. Where two opposite patterns meet, we better them, and we generate new
patterns behind it, in order new sets of codes and laws.

If we decompose this system and, if we analyse all the internal behaviours of the system, and the negotiations
between their classes, in our case, social classes, we discover an exchange of goods and services, same as the ‘habitus’
patterns. This system comes back to Bourdieu affirmation that “taste classifies and it classifies the classifier”, which in
all the meaning classifies everything, because taste has its own inter-articulations or deformations in its hierarchy.

The subject, in our case, the identity, generates own articulations in patterning, in order to satisfy both
subjects of the new generated system. It is not a new system, it is a flexible pattern, balancing both, but at the same
time, opposing and bettering them, like “to be seen” , “to get to know” , “ to discover” , “ to lead and so on(inside
‘habitus’ opposing outside ‘habitus’ or reverse).

By analysing the system of mass-consumption, we see behaviours only in certain patterns, defined by classes.
In our case, for example low-brow has same patterns with the superior-brow( which can be defined by institutions
and organizations, as an example, the university being as an institution).
In old ages, the beginning of the patterning started with fear, hunger, love, and so on. After that comes the
opposition behind good or bad. If we go behind those generated patters, we discover their roots from the society
classes which were generated in the last patterns, (need for housing, need to care, creating likelihoods behind and
before them). In further reformatted patterns we discover new generated patterns(public spaces as markets and
shops) as a reaction of the opposing patterns, but at the same time the bettering field grows up and creating new
generated patterns.

As a first instance of the system, the bettering field appeared between the high-brow, and the low-brow and
generated the middle-brow. As second instance the generated equations, released further patterns.

The middle-brow, has some identical behaviours with the high-brow, and the low-brow , because the bettering field its
higher in relation to high-brow — middle-brow and we discover new behaviours like “nouveau riches” as Bourdieu
named those deformation of the patterns. Every class-category has its own interconnectivity with at least one another

Analysing the behaviours of the social class, we discover and distinguish new manipulators, which are
controlled or are attributed to the behaviours. The identity better the manipulators with the new deformations of the
patterns, generating new series of events or concepts(fashion design field as an example, where interconnections are
generated by the reuse of clothing industry) .

What is classifying these new generated patterns, is the notion of time, which is separating them from the
actual identity. Imagine as giving them all those deformations at the same time, and at the same instance, it would
generate controlled-chaos(world wide web is an example for the modern age as controlled-chaos). Why controlled,
because we can not say chaos in a non-controlled way because of their known manipulators(nothing random).

It is is a complex system to get to analyse it further, but in simple meanings, there is a complexity which
brings the identity on the bettering field. The complexity has certain laws as well, certain codes behind it, in order to
satisfy the subject, in our case social class and identity. There is a social relation between them two, which keep them
all the time in the same position(attraction).

‘Attributed to a person elegance suggests the effortless display of sophistication. We also talk about an elegant solution to a complex problem. In fact only if the problem is complex and difficult does the solution deserve the attribute “elegant”. While simplistic solutions are pseudo-solutions, the elegant solution is marked by an economy of means by which it conquers complexity and resolves (unnecessary) complications. It is this kind of connotation that we would like to harness. An elegant building or urban design should therefore be able to manage considerable complexity without descending into disorder. ‘ (Architectural Design, 2007:1)

Things attributed to things, release further patterns, in our case released complexity. Let’s take as an example the
high-brow, which has more codes of living comparative to the low-brow, high-brow eats with 7 knifes, and low-brow
eats with their bare hands. But this is not the point where we want to get. We want to take out the complexity which
sharpen, and shape our lives, in order the control the chaos. In all the meanings, as more complex we become , as more elegance we need, in order, new sets of codes, new behaviours new events new concepts. Imagine as having all
this complexity without any sort of code behind it, we would not be able to support it, or handle it. Same things apply
with the multiple choice of gadgets, which, in fact it makes our life’s easier because they keep some parts of our
codes, into their memory, which in our case the memory is defined by time.

Time, by its relativity it is affected by innovation, in other words, time is grown by evolution. Time, is
exponential, change and storage. Time, it is patterned by the mass production of goods and services,which creates an
increase in memory storage. In any other words, time is hosting. If we try to generate an articulation between time
and codes, not the one which already exists, we could generate new fields towards the way we design and develop
spaces at the moment. Remember that all the kinetic manipulators are using the time which was created thousands of
years ago. Time needs change, in order to change.
All those manipulators are the actual identity and which are classifying the taste, going behind the Bourdieu’s
equation we discover that, the identity is the one which is placing the taste on classification scale. As Bourdieu says,
taste is truly personal, and the only classifier.
In the Modern age, if we analyse patterns behind the identity we discover another classifier, as behaviours,
concepts, events and which are reformatted by the whole taste. There is no need in to argue that is an self-controlled
behaviour of the whole taste(society based on mass-consumption and mass production).
A multi-generated series of patterns, generate a complexity of the hole system, being hard to process, in
order the connections between the patterns become more hard to find. It is obvious that the today computers make
our life’s easier, in order to satisfy the hole system, in our case, the hole taste, marked behind by the personal identity.
‘a system of lasting , transposable dispositions, which, integrating past experiences, functions at every moment, a matrix of perceptions, appreciations and actions and makes possible the achievement of infinitely diversified tasks, thanks to analogical transformations of schemes permitting the solution of similarly shaped problems. (1977:83)
Taste have the connections, and the identity has the inter-articulation. In order words, the identity is the
selector , and the taste is the traveller. I would like to consider that taste is truly personal, and it is controlled by the
identity. Taste disappears to be truly personal when it faces the other manipulators as influences inside the ‘habitus’.


All the problems which the system occurs, it in fact because of the identities which shaped the system, are
not to be considered as classifiers of the personal taste. If you know to much you’re kicked out, or know enough and
join the club. No doubt it could de destabilize the system, as a ‘computer virus’ which travels thought patterns,
learning new patterns, and transforming the ones which already have in their memory.

I assumed in this essay that we are all machines as computers, differentiated by classes, effects, patterns,
behaviours and so on. It could be the possibility that human mind to generate different types of patterns and equations, hard to resolve. Man is random, but man is strong when he is in co-relation with al least one another,
because of the bettering field. Machines are told to do, and they are programmed what do to, for us, everyday is a new
day, because the computers took our bettering field, in order to satisfy the system as a hole.
I would like to believe that we are machines, because it will be easier to understand others behaviours, and
this could have as conclusion chaos, which we don’t know what kind of chaos it is because we know their

Bibliography :

The Godfather. (1972). Directed by Francis Ford Coppola. U.S.A.

Patrick Schumacher. (1997). Arguing for ellegance.http://www.patrikschumacher.com/Texts/Elegance%20argument.htm (Accessed 8th of May 2009)Published in: Elegance, AD (Architectural Design), January/February 2007, Vol.77, No.1, Wiley – Academy, London, Editor: Helen Castle, Guest-edited by Ali Rahim & Hina Jamelle

Pierre Bourdieu :Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, translated by Richard Nice , Harvard University of Press

Steele, Brett D. (2003). Negotiate my boundary! Mass-customization and responsive environments. Architectural Association London

Attfiled. (2000). ‘Space: Where Things Take Place’. In: Wild Things: theMaterial Culture of Everyday Life. pp.177-192. Oxford: Berg

Putnam, T. (). ‘Beyond the Modern Home: Shifting the Parameters of Residence’.In: Bird, J et al (Eds.). Mapping the Futures: Local Cultures, Global Change.pp.150-165. London: Routledge

Bachelard, G. (1994). The Poetics of Space. Boston: Beacon PressCresswell, T. (2004). Place: a Short Introduction. Oxford: BlackwellMoran, J. (2004). ‘Housing, Memory and Everyday Life in Contemporary Britain’.In: Cultural Studies, Vol. 18, No. 4, July, pp.607-627

Miles, M. (1997). Art and space and the city, Public art and urban futures. London: Routledge

http://www.altitudini.ro/articles.php?ai=1275&st=0&oi=1272&filter=-1(accessed on 09 January 2009)Bogdan, Ghidiu (2006) Deconstrucţia pozitivă a spaţiului public(Positive deconstruction of the public space)

http://atelier.liternet.ro/articol/5890/Bogdan-Ghiu/Deconstructia-pozitiva-a-spatiului-public.htmlDan, Mihailescu (2009) Spatiul public locul nimanui (Public space, no one place)http://www.evz.ro/articole/detalii-articol/834917/DAN-C-MIHAILESCU-Spatiul-public-locul-nimanui/