Hi Derek, I don't mind at all; though I must say I am an undergrad in Fine Art and Philosophy so bear with me. I was really interested in the question: 'What is Art?' and moreover what is 'Good' Art. 
If we commence with the idea of art being valued as an object, and then who decides what  'good' Art is. Is it the viewer?  With the advent of photography, Daguerre, Fox Talbot etc, artists, (painters in particular) expanded their fields, from realism to other forms, i.e. impressionism, cubism, fauvism, nouveau realistes and so on.  If I understand correctly, with the realistes and fluxus movements the emphasis for value shifted from the audience viewing the art as 'pleasing', to the art becoming, or being within the audiences response. The concern I had here is, can anyone quantify or qualify the experience, and if so how?

The critical theoretical approach from which the study of Fine Art, 
has historically been applied, stems from a traditional classical base, which may be said to have specific, or measurable value.  With the transposition from theory based on classical notions of art and practice, to theory aimed at modern art, there is a discrepancy on the discourse surrounding, how and what can be transferred successfully in relation to value. Typically, when set in a historical context, theories regarding art were primarily concerned with art as object. The function of the object was to communicate to the viewer via the medium a particular outcome, which we may term as pleasing.  The emphasis upon the outcome here is a key point, if the outcome can be understood as the defining factor in an evaluative sense, i.e. the experience produced in the viewer by the feelings associated by it, how can one then apply this approach to painters in the field of Abstract Expressionism? If we understand the term Abstract Expressionist, as defined in the oxford dictionary as: '...a development of abstract art aiming at subjective emotional interaction with particular emphasis on spontaneous creativity', the outcome does not necessarily depend upon a pleasing feeing being induced by viewing'.  The art as object for Expressionists becomes redundant; it is not a representation in a formalistic sense that can be evaluated. Jackson Pollock described his mode of working as such: “the modern artist is working with space and time, and expressing his feelings rather than illustrating”. [1] 
If in perceiving the role of traditional theory in the experiential outcome being in the viewing, what can one deem as appropriately quantifiable? Could it be said that if on viewing an artwork one is not instantly pleased the experience has no value?

[1] 
 Johnson, E, (1982)
Possibilities I,  American Artists on Art, ten Abridged Essays, Harper and Row.