I use the book's definition of "quality" (or one of them) as my to-go mechanism whenever I have to explain why I think something is bad art.

It's a shame that not even the author seems to like the definition.

I read this book a few years back and while I found it quite interesting as a story, I did not glean any major insights from it.

It most likely has to do with my own ignorance about philosophy, but all I got from the book was that the author hates Aristotle and rigorous classification. And that quality is a more important property than morality.

I liked the part where he talks about gumption traps. Very relevant if you've worked on a big project.