I think a lot of art preferences can be quantified (kind of like how frequency response is actually an okay proxy for audio quality in headphones). My gripe is taking this common-sense case and trying to turn it into a universal theory of everything, dismissing actual human experience.
As an artist, I firmly believe we can at least quasi-objectively say "good art", or "bad art". However, this does not correlate well to personal preference. My love of White Castle sliders in no way suggests that they are actually good burgers. I can dislike a work of art and still know it's good.
Popularity can be a good proxy, too. Any hit song is a good song, even if you hate it.
Do you think the article is guilty of "trying to turn it into a universal theory of everything, dismissing actual human experience" anywhere? It's very specific in it's conclusions and discusses several of your objections in it's limitations section (at least from the Abstract - perhaps they're reaching much further in the full paper?)
As an artist, I firmly believe we can at least quasi-objectively say "good art", or "bad art". However, this does not correlate well to personal preference. My love of White Castle sliders in no way suggests that they are actually good burgers. I can dislike a work of art and still know it's good.
Popularity can be a good proxy, too. Any hit song is a good song, even if you hate it.