The most innocent way to be is to no longer have a judgment of taste. To put it simply, we are all snobs in a way. Bourdieu explains it well, examining this scenario of the average classification that resides in a modern world. Pierre focuses his attention on the French bourgeoisie, its preferences and tastes. Throughout their daily existence, human beings constantly choose between what they find tastefully pleasing and what they think is poor, undoubtedly tasteless or monstrous. Bourdieu builds his study based entirely on surveys that consider the large number of social factors that influenced the choice of entertainment activities, clothing, dinner menus for guests, furniture and numerous exceptional substances of taste by of the French individual. What essentially emerges from his discovery is that social snobbery is observed almost everywhere in the middle-class bourgeois world. The numerous tasteful selections made by people are mostly refinements, that is, selections made in contrast to those made through distinctive classes. The taste is not pure. Bourdieu finds a universe of social greatness in the preference for preparing bouillabaisse, in our current faction of thinness, in Californian sports, for example, cross-country snowboarding and running. The social world, Bourdieu argues, functions at the same time as an association of profound relationships and as an emblematic framework in which meticulous skills of style become the cause of social judgment. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The difficulty of Bourdieu's book is fascinating: the techniques of social questioning are certainly captivating and curious. The conclusion clarifies why a book on art and taste did not concern the group of words related to philosophical and artistic style. Bourdieu argues that, in case we were now to take into account the "return of the repressed, which produced the truth of taste against which, through an immense repression, all legitimate aesthetics was constructed", then we should be a change of vocabulary with the ultimate goal that these two discussions cannot exist as alternative or parallel discourses, but rather as a solidarity of discussion about taste. Bourdieu reminds us that pure taste depends on the rejection of all that is impure. In this way, the normal movement of suppressing genuine taste is a burst of revulsion that cannot be considered pure effect. This repugnance is coordinated with the simple relationship with the enchanting and the pleasant, that which is readily satisfying. Bourdieu quotes Schopenhauer extensively to demonstrate sophistication: therefore, art that stimulates desire liberates the meaning of art. Bourdieu argues that Kant's criterion of pure taste is nothing more than a rejection of that which forces pleasure. The repugnance that claims that it occurs due to the expulsion of the separation, in which the freedom between the representation and the represented is affirmed, to put it clearly, the hostility, the loss of the subject in question, is alarming. Therefore the protest that demands to be pleased cannot be art. This is why Kant cannot provide documentation of how visual interest arouses the subject.