Measuring the quality of art!

I've been watching a lot of tennis this week! And I've noticed something interesting that I wanted to share with you.
Clearly one's athletic prowess can be objectively measured by numbers.
You win! Your ranking goes up, your income goes up, your endorsement opportunities go up, your popularity goes up. It's all measured by the stats.
It's like this in almost every sport, and when an athlete, whether a tennis player, baseball player, basketball or whatever, is winning, excelling at his sport...even HE or SHE must admit how good he or she is at it. Isn't that right? Ask Roger Federer, or Tiger Woods. Neither of these men who say that they are not great at what they do.

But artistic performance cannot be measured by statistical data, can it? Art is SUBJECTIVE!

Remember Andy Warhol's painting of a Campbells's soup can? It was highly successful, but even today, there are numerous people out there who do NOT consider it art, and therefore not worthy of artistic praise. And one may wonder what Andy was thinking at the time.

I point this out because we, as artists each need to get to the bottom of this goodness or badness, this merit or lack thereof of our own performances.
How can we measure something that cannot be scientifically measured? And how can we know when it's not up to standard without displaying it to a large group? How can we call something bad based on just our own opinion, formed by the doubts and fears we have inside? How do we measure the quality of art in any form?
Oh yes! We have "experts" to tell us what is good art and what is bad or inconsequential, sure! Well, I don't know about you, but personally I love the movies the critics hate, and I read all the books the book reviewers label as second-rate. Maybe I think that critics are self-imposed experts who don't know any more, (or any less) than I do, so I can make up my mind.
That's really the point.
With an art form, the quality of it lies in the receiver, the listener if it's musical, the viewer if it's visual, etc.
But rankings?
Isn't it quite possible for a singer to be at the top of his or her game in poularity and still sound terrible to a lot of people? Of course that's possible...and occurs frequently.
Whereas, if a baseball player is batting 400+ and has hit a gazillion homers, one CANNOT DENY the quality of that effort, and quite often even the person who's made it.
So tell me, dear readers....what say YOU about this theory of mine?
We've got 3 juicy topics going on right now and you are welcome to comment on all of them if you'd like to. So SING OUT!