1991.
Kurt Cobain launches himself at Dave Grohl's drum kit.
Tears his shirt in the process.
He doesn’t care.
After all, it helped.
Looking ragged was the point.
Millions of fans soon copied the look.
Many fans had recently abandoned the hard rock aesthetic of the 80s, swapping their LA studs and leathers for Seattle plaid.
The alternative undercurrent broke the surface and swamped what came before.
Tastes shifted.
But what exactly is taste?
It's a tricky question.
We often talk about people having taste.
Or lacking it.
Usually, we mean it as a compliment.
Recently, an AI company called Taste Labs launched.
Their mission is to end AI slop.
To help AI become more tasteful.
And they are starting with design.
It’s a great problem to solve.
Because we know AI output when we see it.
Generic.
Mid.
But what do they mean by tasteful design?
Is taste the same thing as good design?
Design schools teach proportion, hierarchy, texture and colour.
A designer who learns these principles will typically produce good work.
But knowing good design principles isn't necessarily the same thing as having taste.
Tastemakers often break rules.
The minimalist mid-century modernists broke rules.
Grunge broke rules. Punk edge replaced slick glam virtuosity.
Many things we now regard as tasteful began life as violations.
Often with a wink.
So, this is a significant challenge.
Especially for a repeatable process.
Knowing when and how to break the rules requires judgment.
….or perhaps I'm taking their pitch too literally.
Perhaps they're simply trying to elevate design standards. To make AI output look less AI-generated.
That will likely work.
For a time.
But every successful aesthetic eventually becomes a tidy, neat package.
And then every package becomes generic.
Then the off-beat, unlikely undercurrent surfaces anew.