I think that this, sadly, boils down to semantics.
It does seem to me that by his reasoning good taste exists since good art exists, problem being that what is considered good art and what people like change with time, present a piece of modern art to Michelangelo and chances are he would consider it some sort of insulting joke.
Good taste then is not something objective, but depends on context and the importance of being able to tell what is good now often pales to the importance of being able to tell what is good for oneself, moreover, the good taste becomes dependent on those "average" tastes.
Let my give you my primitive explanation to this, maybe it helps a bit. Art is actually more than than the drawing itself, art always comes with a story. When the technique is so great that you can get a good hang of the story just by looking at it, you have the Sixtine chapel. Probably you won't get everything the master wanted to say at a first view, but it's already a lot. On most modern art though, you have zero chances to grab the meanings by just looking at the creation. Thus modern artists write also a lot, talk about their works, and try their best to sell the story to the listening consumer. What are the chances of a casual museum goer to know the story of a certain piece of scrap metal? Thus we can only laugh at what we call ridiculous attempt and walk on. But it's only because we don't know the its story. I won't say that all modern art have a convincing story, of course - not everybody is a master. But my point is that where there's less technique, it needs way more story.
Thus modern artists write also a lot, talk about their works
Sometimes to the detriment of their works. I had a friend who was an aspiring artist, and it was fascinating listening to him talk about his art. He thought deeply about his work and a very clear vision and philosophy about what, how and why he wanted to achieve. Unfortunately his actual execution never got the same care and his actual exhibitions looked mediocre and thrown together together at the last minute (which, to be fair, they tended to be). He never felt that was the important part, and unless you had been in the pub with him the night before you would never have a chance of 'getting' what he was trying to do.
To be fair, I know multiple programmers who are exactly like that.
Totally thoughtful. Can talk about development in pub for hours. Can talk about architecture, frameworks, best practices, you name it. And his code still sux, is hard to maintain and unfixable unless you refactor it.
My rule of thumb is "the longer the artist's statement, the worse the art". If more effort went into storytelling than producing the artistic artefact, I'm not interested in that pretentious puffery. Make art of concentric green circle because you enjoy the effects they bring through your eyes. No need to write an essay.
I think one could argue there is an objective good taste even if every attempt in society to find it results in quite different subjective approximations.
It does seem to me that by his reasoning good taste exists since good art exists, problem being that what is considered good art and what people like change with time, present a piece of modern art to Michelangelo and chances are he would consider it some sort of insulting joke.
Good taste then is not something objective, but depends on context and the importance of being able to tell what is good now often pales to the importance of being able to tell what is good for oneself, moreover, the good taste becomes dependent on those "average" tastes.