Indeed I wouldn't want to abandon the enterprise of evaluating art. There's clearly some qualities about certain works that distinguish them from others - some will be a lot more successful in appealing to people's artistic sensibilities than others, and not just by pure luck or chance. But to make broad declarative criteria as to what these qualities are is a very difficult undertaking. Too often those who do this try to consider works in a vaccum, that they have those transcendent a priori qualities, yet how an individual relates to art is forcibly based on their complex and ingrained systems of experiences. In terms of philosophy, I think Kant's works on aesthetics hold up reasonably well on this subject compared to most of his contemporaries, so I'd suggest that philosophical projects are still possible just difficult. When I was younger I used to be quite elitist on the question. And though I still consider some works to be more successful than others, I find it more productive to try to consider other people's tastes more anthropologically, based on what I know about their lives and the associations I have between the works they like. It's a useful exercise for understanding the nature of taste; perhaps in future it will lead me to a more concrete construction.