I think your comment is really insightful.<p>&gt; Or, more generally, any potential value of it is subjective, and evaluations of merit aren&#x27;t actually taking even that into account.<p>Art is art, there doesn&#x27;t need to be some line in the sand where things are suddenly &quot;good&quot; or &quot;art&quot;, or &quot;bad&quot; and &quot;garbage&quot;. But there&#x27;s definitely some kind of range of quality, and subjectively if the work isn&#x27;t moving the audience, it&#x27;s not subjectively &quot;good&quot;.<p>I think you tap into the notion that &quot;good&quot; can be different for different audiences, and I think that also makes sense. I&#x27;m not particularly moved by most religious art, but I recognize it as art because of its capacity to move others.<p>Trying to create a precision semantic framework around art is a fool&#x27;s errand. But I think there needs to be some kind of recognition that there&#x27;s a kind of ordering in art that happens. The stuff on display at the MoMA or the NGA&#x27;s Modern Art wing or the Tate Modern? Somebody ranked that better than anything else they could have spent their limited conservation funds on. It was more &quot;worthy&quot; than other pieces. So this ranking happens de facto no matter what any philosophy of relativism in art pretends to be about.