I've only heard the 'art is subjective' defense from people with uncultivated tastes. Myself, I don't know much about chemistry, and something I don't do is wander into conversations with chemists and expect my unfounded opinion to be anything other than a nuisance to them. When it comes to art, for some reason, people who haven't done their homework nonetheless expect their opinion to matter.
Because else you're in an endless loop, where you define what you like by what you like.
It is (or, perhaps, it has been) generally understood, that being schooled into things, learning about them, their history, aesthetic rivalries and ideas abotu them, and appreciating the cultured opinions of people who have studied them more, helps one appreciate finer things and cultivate their preferences.
The alternative, "because I like it", sounds like a regression to childhood.
I find it worthwhile to listen to people who describe what touches them and what they are indifferent to. However, the tone of the article describes the "mundane" and the "extraordinary" from an objectivesque point of view, which I personally find silly due to the fact that art is an inherently subjective experience.
I don't think that's settled. For that matter, I don't think that's true.
Like how there’s good code and shit code.
This. Why should I allow anyone to define what kinds of art should I find transcendent and, worse, which kinds of art are non-transcendent?
This article is weird and full of stereotypes; it's written from the point as if art was easily and objectively classifiable. No, art is not classifiable like that, and something that one man calls everyday trash can be eye-opening and mind-blowing to another. This fact alone disproves the main assumption that this article is based on, and breaks the point of the whole article for me.