
Full text loading...
This article examines seemingly trivial disputes over taste in the context of early European modernism, focusing on two key conflicts involving prominent cultural figures: one centred on controversy over the Bauhaus canteen menu, and the other publicly dramatized through a story culminating over a pair of slippers in turn-of-the-century Vienna. Though these disagreements may appear minor, they expose deeper rifts within the foundations of Western modern architecture, art and design. Drawing on Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of taste, this article explores how both aesthetic and literal taste operate as sites of contestation, instrumental in defining social relationships and power dynamics. Bourdieu’s distinction between ‘legitimate’ taste, cultivated through education, and ‘natural’ taste, grounded in embodied experience, is central to understanding these conflicts. While the protagonists are recognized experts in matters of aesthetics, their disputes center on peripheral, seemingly trivial subjects. These subjects, however, offer a distinctive perspective for analyzing broader professional and cultural dynamics, precisely because they fall outside the protagonists’ areas of expertise, freeing them from the constraints of disciplinary norms and allowing for more candid engagement. This investigation adopts a micro historical approach, informed by Carlo Ginzburg’s methodology that emphasizes the importance of small, overlooked details. By focusing on these specific instances of in-fighting within the early European modernist movement, the article sheds light on the complexities of group dynamics, professional hierarchies and the negotiation of taste in a historical moment marked by significant political, cultural and artistic transformations. The microhistory approach prioritizes intimate, personal observations over broad historical narratives, revealing how peripheral matters of taste may offer profound insights into the professional and social tensions of the time.