Just so you know, there was no conversation about culture going on. And no, not all aspects of cultural dialog are "inherently subjective." If I say "my favorite food is pizza," that's not "subjective," that is an objective fact I am presenting -- unless you doubt my own understanding of my preferences, in which case discussion with me on the topic of "favorite foods" is irrational.

Were I to say "pizza is the best food literally ever made by man," that isn't subjective either. It's a meaningless statement that has no truth. Even if in my subjective universe, it feels "true" to me, that doesn't matter at all to any discussion about anything other than psychoanlyzing me specifically, and the generally most obvious first-order conclusion is "that person better define what he means by 'best food ever made by man,' but it is likely that he is terrible at communicating truths effectively regarding this topic."

However, if I said "pizza tastes bland if it has no cheese, sauce, toppings, or seasonings," one would generally think "this is a true statement," unless one were to start a debate about what the term "bland" means -- such a person would clearly care little for a discussion of truth and only for time-wasting pedantry. "Pizza without anything on it is bland" is not a subjective truth -- as long as we understand what "bland" means and "pizza" means, two very understandable concepts. If a person cannot agree to a definition of these terms, communication with them is for all intents and purposes worthless.

Me saying "quality over quantity is generally for the best" is the same truth statement of "pizza without toppings is bland." How it is in the same category is simple, though I worry I would need a dozen more analogies to explain it to you, and in the end you'd probably just piss your pants like a toddler on the playground and claim that attempting to assess truth in a universe that is, despite people's aggressive misunderstanding otherwise, able to be understood and discussed without resorting to such inane intellectual concepts as "opinion is the last word on all of experience, no truth can be known."

Art is easily a categorizable and assessable phenomenon just like anything else. Preferences are "subjective" indeed, though, really, what does that term even mean? It just means a data set sitting inside a specific brain happens to parse external data in a specific way, but are you truly going to propose that it is literally impossible to ever comprehend the way someone else thinks about something? If we can understand why we feel the way we do about a set of aesthetic artifacts, can we not then come to a set of rules by which to assess such artifacts external to our own assumptions and gut feelings?

Art is not some mystical process hidden behind a curtain of uncertainty like some mystical emission of a soul or spirit. It is comprehensible, particularly by those who are well-educated both in its creation and its consumption. The base opinions of people who are not well-educated on such matters generally are irrelevant to the process of critically discussing such matters.

"Quality is generally better than quantity in art" is a basic rule that can be easily agreed upon among any rational organisms for a variety of pretty obvious reasons. Anyone who disagrees with such a clear premise would be burdened with not just coming up with one or a couple counter-examples, but with refuting the entire concept in full. If they cannot, then such a value has no reason to be questioned.

But alas, the mewling infantile masses of humanity still question basic scientific evidence, and here I am trying to discuss something that requires a few levels of higher-order thinking.