I used to think there was a category of MFs. Those to whom devotion is due, once they are recognized. Miles and Casals, Rothko, Joseph Cornell. My theory of invisible cities, though, locates the response in the person making the personal investment, not in the pantheon of MFs per se.

That raises the question of whether there might be bad investments. In other words, objects of devotion who aren't worthy. For me, maybe cummings, Vonnegut? I can't think of too many others. I would argue that no, there are no bad investments. One made during adolescence might cause embarrassment later, but they are appropriate at that age.

ON THE OTHER HAND

How can someone be despised for "taste"? It is assumed that the person with that kind of bad taste has made a deep personal investment in, commitment to, say Ayn Rand, Thomas Kinkade, or Kenny G. That IS the person; those are the markers of subjectivity that that person has voluntarily chosen as socio-cultural identity. To act as though those markers are not open to critique seems rather odd. Just as it seems logical to me that someone might despise me as an elitist shit.

Ortega y Gasset argues that the purpose of dehumanized art is to provide the basis for just such a cultural differentiation.