Dashchund
So, to conclude. I think a piece of art can be justly rated as "good" when the overwhelming majority of rational, well-educated (Western) adults who have examined it, - again over a considerable period of time, say, 3 to 4 centuries, for instance-, state that in their considered opinion, the objet d'art in question is either, pleasingly beautiful, or, delightfully/pleasantly sublime, but not astoundingly or remarkably so.
This is Mill's argument. Better to be a pig satisfied or a philosopher unsatisfied? What he had in mind was that the common things in life and the superior things, the ones only ones of cultivated taste know about, are both known by the cultivated ones, while the common person only knows common things. Those of taste and culture know very well about the accessible indulgences of life, and they choose live the cultured life, not the easy one, the rowdy nights of beer drinking, mud fights on the beach and so on.
But, and this really is to the point of art and its appreciation, is the nuanced interpretation of a Kandinsky by some aficionado truly superior to a good mud fight? I think a good mud fight requires good mud fighters, just as good art interpretation requires a good education in visual arts. A good mud fighter is healthy, strong, young at heart, free of the burden education imposes on an original mind (still wandering around in "clouds of glory?)
The idea is that high brow interpretation certainly does have its satisfaction, but when the dust has settled, the measurement of utility generated, the raw aesthetic, if you will, I don't think the art aficionado wins this contest. And the rock and roller half naked and high as a kite hanging from a flag pole during a concert is having the time of her life, is she not?
Unless you consider that art can take us closer to god, to something sublime and profound about being human and these things are intimated in study and inform discriminating taste. That is another matter. Where are these "clouds of glory" anyway? When Wordsworth was a child wandering about the moors, he had little interpretative training.