Developed taste and natural exclusion

To develop a taste implies to become the protagonists of a passion, that is to say, to overcome by far the role of spectator – however intense, emotional and transcendent it may seem at first – a philosopher marked, that when it comes to knowledge by experimental means, a walk for 20 minutes through Paris is worth more than a whole set of photographs of that city. Well, look how big the difference is between enjoying listening to Schubert’s Ave Maria and doing a stopover exercise with an instrument, how far away it is from watching a Barça match and practicing on a team that competes in a tournament.

What you are passionate about, you know, has its rules, but it is one thing to know them from the outside, and another to experience them. For example, you have that poompsae that should have a time of 1:05, but you always finish it above 1:10. You built a verse that is beautiful, but instead of 11 syllables, as the rule says, it has 12. There are those two bars including semiquavers with B A and C, for trumpet, which just like that, definitely want to convince you that they can’t be played. I ask you, who would you talk to about these things? Uh-huh, with someone who understands.

It is clear that the more you get involved with developing a taste, the more knowledge you acquire. When you internalize this knowledge by putting into practice the different guidelines, rules and theoretical advice, you not only advance, but you accentuate the difference between you and a common amateur. Of course, there comes a point at which you can determine the degree of difficulty of certain compositions, the level of execution of certain routines, in short, you can give your opinion with authority regarding what you know from the theoretical and practical points of view. However, this situation, as is not the case, usually involves rejection.

You’ll see, as a rule, anyone – without ever having played in a league tournament – comes out and says that Messi is better than Ronaldo, or vice versa; there’s no shortage of people who – without having written a single story in their lives – claim that the last Nobel Prize in literature is a fiasco; nor will there be any shortage of people who – without having composed at least one symphony – defend that Schubert surpasses Beethoven. Ordinary people are accustomed to speaking, expressing opinions, and even judging, without knowledge, hoping, and worse, that they will take it seriously. It is these people who reject an expert, if he contradicts you.

So far, it is easy to understand that those who are already initiated in this or that subject will feel more comfortable talking to their colleagues, and that those who are not initiated in this or that subject will feel more comfortable talking -without knowing- about this subject among others who do not know about it either, that is to say, it operates a natural exclusion between those who know and those who do not know; at least, at the time of giving their opinion. In this context, there is usually no shortage of resentment, which, with a «don’t think you’re better because you know better», tries to conceal the underlying question: that of tastes.