But that sentence isn't arguing for the notion of some "absolute good art". If I had to criticize it, it would be to say it doesn't go far enough by still accep

But that sentence isn't arguing for the notion of some "absolute good art". If I had to criticize it, it would be to say it doesn't go far enough by still accepting the concept of good vs bad art, whereas I think interesting discussions are multidimensional. For example, why do you defend archeological architecture? Are the pyramids "good" because they are opulent? That sounds like a sensible stance at a glance, but then what of the Burj Khalifa? Is Calvin and Hobbes not acclaimed? Is it not art? What of obscure manga about gender identity? Why is Turning Red controversial? Who is it relatable to, and does that matter? Suddenly equating one's opinion w/ "good vs bad" seems superficial. There's historical context, there's political commentary, and commentary on the commentary, and how that shapes the rest of the contemporary works.