In the book Seeing Like a State (recommended here, thank you anonymous hacker), one of the core arguments is that the State, in whatever form, expresses its authority by forcing legibility of its subjects. Examples span from the generally beneficial (see: standard measurements, introduced in France to facilitate centralized taxation) to horribly detrimental (see: centrally planned farming and the resulting famines in the USSR and China). A core thesis is that, regardless of the “goodness” of outcome, this introduction of legibility necessarily reduces the agency and individuality of the subjects, as any subject is exactly as complex as it is illegible. I think Wolfram speaks of this in another context as computational irreducibility.

This essay, and the core premise of “good taste” looks to be another example of the same. “Good taste” can exist on average, outside of the context of specific individuals. Indeed, good taste is emergent. It exists in the sense that “critics” are just another market, and market needs are met. “Good taste” can then be described and prescribed, but like most centrally planned policies, it will fail to adapt.

So yes, good taste can be said to exist. It cannot, however, be possessed.