I'm gonna go against the grain and say it's objective. If you don't admit that then E.L. James' subliterate use of the phrase "Dick attack" can be made to stand alongside Shakespeare. The thing is it's not objective in the sense that 2+2 is always four, it's a consensus objectivity that allows for dissent. Good art stands on firm emotional or intellectual ground. Lesser art does not. Kazimir Malevich painted a black square, that's all it is, and I can tell you why it's fine art, but I don't agree that it's good art even if it's part of the narrative of higher level baccalaureate art history. That doesn't make it bad, it just means I disagree that it's good. Liking 50 Shades of Grey or The Room (with no ironic appreciation) doesn't make you wrong, it just means you have bad taste. We need a third linguistic option for things like art. I feel like Asian languages excel in this kind of nuanced, complex definition whereas English words have the subtlety of a twenty pound sack of flour hitting the floor.