Sam Bodrogan: "I tend to use the term ‘taste’ to describe my guiding principles as a writer. My theory of taste, and thus my holistic theory of criticism, goes as follows:
Taste refers to the manner in which one engages with a work of art. I like this term because it feels both individual and broadly informed. Having good taste is not about what specifically a person likes or dislikes, or how eloquently they argue for their perspective. It is about having a breadth of possible lenses one can adopt to observe a text, and a knack for sensing which critical practice would be best suited for a given work, in a way that best bridges the gap between the critic and the art.
Having taste is about possessing the knowledge base to contextualize a work in a manner fitting for the subject at the hand, and the linguistic prowess to offer a compelling picture of the critic’s perspective, as much as that may or may not be necessary for the project of a given essay.
Having good taste means knowing when to shut up and let people who know better talk. It’s about knowing that you don’t have to say all the other stuff if you only have anything worthwhile to say about the tertiary bits. It’s about expanding and deepening your pool of references. It’s about not basing your sense of self in your criticism. It is a simultaneously about giving all of yourself in supplication to the work in question, however briefly.
It is a fundamentally open, curious, and unsolved communal process."