"""The premise here, that there is some underlying objective version of reality when it comes to consuming works of art (wine, food at restaurants, TV images, or even haircuts.) is extremely flawed."""
Your premise is also flawed. Even if wine, food etc is like "consuming works of art", their is an underlying tangible artifact in front of you (the food, the wine). Wine experts are paid and consulted because they can supposedly judge this underlying quality.
The "interpretation as art" comes into play, and is expected (different wine critics are expected to have differing opinions).
You wouldn't call someone an art critic if you could pass an Archie comic to him signed "Picasso" and he would believe it and judge it as a work of Picasso.
The same holds for the described experiments: changing your opinion on the same wine based on a more expensive label or a taste-less red dye is way more off than "artistic interpretation". It's cluelessness.
(Also, TV image quality is not a "work of art", it's something technical that can be analyzed).