Barbarous Taste P.85~88

The judgment of taste analyzed by Kant presupposes a different lived experience which, like the popular experience of the beautiful, is socially conditioned or which, at any rate, is never independent of social conditions, those which make possible “people of taste”. (p.85)
Kant…strove to distinguish ‘that which pleases’ from ‘that which gratifies’ and, more generally, to separate ‘disinterestedness’, the sole guarantee of the specifically aesthetic quality of contemplation, from the ‘interest of the senses’ which defines ‘the agreeable’, and from ‘the interest of Reason’ which defines ‘the Good’. By contrast, working-class people, who expect every image explicitly to fulfill a function. (P.86-86)
This ‘functional’ aesthetic is necessarily pluralistic and conditional. (p.86)
Discerning…its possible uses and audiences…is a way of understanding… of appropriating an impersonal and anonymous photograph, deprived of the obvious function which gives commonplace photography its meaning and value.
…photographers may sometimes feel obliged to show only those photographs that could ‘interest every one’.
But the ordinary use of photography almost completely excludes any concern for the universality of the picture that is produced or looked at, and which derives its interest not from what it is in and for itself, but from what it is for one person or for a group of people. (P.87-88)
…without the photograph’s losing its personal relationship to the photographer; those viewers are defined by the personal relationship that links them to the photographer or the viewer of the photograph. (p.88)