When is something in bad taste? It is not at all an easy question to answer. As far as sensible observers are concerned, it is simply a matter of their instincts telling them in no uncertain terms that something is in good taste or otherwise. However, it is near impossible to demonstrate to somebody who is challenged in the aesthetics department why that happens to be the case.
The big irony here is that somebody with his aesthetic sensibilities intact, with whom you would back yourself to be able to communicate in the same language so to speak, would never ask you to demonstrate why something is in bad taste. For he would agree with you without having it explained. On the other hand, you do not have a snowball’s chance in hell to explain to somebody not quite up to the mark in aesthetic judgment why you believe that certain inviolable boundaries have been crossed.
Most human behaviour, at least in its beginning, is natural and spontaneous, for which there is usually a perfectly logical explanation. However, man rarely knows where to stop. So, way too often he goes overboard without having any inkling that he has. For example, few would dispute that in matters of dress, one should make oneself as comfortable as basic decency allows, but no more. But it is one thing to agree on principle, and quite another to see eye to eye when it comes to the application of that principle. So, if an individual dispenses with (say) the necktie on the grounds that the pleasure derived from taking it off is not worth the discomfort of wearing it for long hours, one can nod in understanding, even approval. But when somebody (citing the same principle) chooses to wear ankle socks (or no socks at all) with a lounge suit, or opts to don a T-shirt-shalwar combination in public, anybody with an unimpaired aesthetic sense would immediately know that the pressures of life have got the better of the man’s judgement. He would know but would be at a loss to explain an objective basis for where he has drawn the line for good taste.
Of course, the context can never be ignored. The acceptance on the part of the most discriminating aesthete for a tandoor-wala wearing the customary (for that trade) T-shirt-shalwar combination is a case in point. He has earned the right to dress as he damn well pleases on account of the sterling service he provides in the hot and steamy summer afternoons. There is no reason why aesthetics and pragmatism should be mutually exclusive. For aesthete or not, a man needs to eat roti.
There are other examples of the context making all the difference. Nobody (including the most uncompromising and discerning aesthete) would bat an eye if a toddler roams around everywhere in his shorts. Or if an adult male wears Bermuda shorts in the privacy of his bedroom, in the playground or in the gym. But that is no reason why the latter should deem it appropriate to start receiving guests or paying social calls while clad in that attire. Sadly, many men do precisely that.
Unfortunately, contrary to widespread misconception, customs and traditions are no reliable guide to a sound aesthetic either. Many conventions being quite silly to say the least, there is little correlation between convention and good taste. Consider the wigs judges have been wearing for hundreds of years – they still wear them in many countries – or the black coat, which to this day is part of the uniform for lawyers in this country. In the scorching summer heat, acceptance of a coat of any hue is incriminating enough on aesthetic grounds, let alone a black one. The devastating effect on the man wearing such an atrocity, as well as on sensitive bystanders, is only too obvious. Many an unnecessary misery in the world could be avoided by sound aesthetic judgment calls. Do not hold your breath though.
No doubt most of our culinary delicacies are a result of experimentation and of giving free rein to imagination when it comes to the possible combinations and permutations of food items and ingredients. Besides, nothing could be a more personal decision for a man than what and how he eats. And yet there are certain experiments which, although not punishable by law, are certainly not beyond reproach aesthetically. Dunking cookies in tea or endorsing pineapple in pizza are unmistakable symptoms of a significantly messed up aesthetic apparatus, if not an altogether bankrupt one. Nothing can be done about any of it though.
Aesthetic judgment calls are even more subjective than the moral ones. Disagreements in the moral domain are mainly about the application of principles; and rarely on the principles themselves. As we have seen earlier, differences in application are there in the aesthetic domain as well (even when there is agreement on the broad principle), but here oft-times there are no agreed upon principles to begin with. Therefore, while many things in life can be taught and learned, try objectively explaining to an uncultivated soul why a Ghalib is the embodiment of aesthetic excellence while a Wasi Shah is anything but. Such questions, I am afraid, can be answered only one way. By bluntly saying this: ‘If you need to ask, you will never know.’
