**Not all things are done because they are new, but sometimes because they are necessary**
To design a framework for an objective judgement, we require a rigorous language, whose vocabulary is well defined and which has specific rules to form sentences or ideas. The necessity comes from the fact that the space of ideas is potentially infinite(since ideas are combinatorially countable infinites) and complex and requires a form of honest intellectual effort i.e. rigor. There are two mutually exclusive kinds of ideas: Expressed and Unexpressed. Observe carefully how this is not classified as Expressible and Non-expressible.
Expressed ideas are based on words. Or more accurately terms. These terms are countably finite for humans and are directly related to empirical facts, in either simply linearly reducible or non-linearly reducible (additively or non-additively reducible) fashion. As we discover new empirical facts, we go on creating new terms and new ideas. This does not mean that idea-space of pre-existing terms is completely explored by us, but rather that discovery of new idea expands the potential space of ideas.
To define a few things, sentences are arrangement of words. Statements are that sub-space of sentences that have truth-values.
A framework, is an ordered set of rules (statements), created to identify presence of certain features within an object. I would like to point out that these rules have special form: they are functions which take the object in question as an argument and yield a truth value. A judgement is essentially an ordered n-tuple of truth-values obtained from this framework.
Truth values of statements (rules) thus can be only assigned if these statements have a basis in reality. This is because of the definition of reality as something that can be tested in a particular way. If a statement has nocurrent basis in reality (since reality is dynamic) then these statements have no effect on frameworks that correspond to judgement of objects, as such existing within reality. Such statements can be termedmeaningless. The important assertion here, is that statements that can't be tested make no sense for being used for further exploration. Such ideas, when and if allow further testing, can expand our knowledge of reality.
This is all the background information we need to make some powerful statements.
Within a given reality it is always possible to design frameworks to judge the content of real objects in a manner that is completely rigorous using a rigorous language assuming such a language exists (it does). Such frameworks are necessarily dynamic and change according to changes in reality. How? Change in reality adds words (terms) to this language or changes the grammatical form of the sentence in a well-behaved manner. The language used for such design purposes can potentially identify all possible future changes with some extra-ordinary human ingenuity. This is because reality is a subset of the sentence space of this language.
This has some examples based in reality. But since I am not an expert on history, amongst not being an expert on a lot of other things, the following should not be taken as a rigorous exercise of knowledge.
During the transition from Medieval to renaissance era in the west, we see a drastic change in art-form, wheredivinity, pre-dominantly exhibited in different forms human expression as the ultimate proposition of beauty, is replaced with focus on the depth of material reality captured. I suppose, the reasons for such aparadigm shift was the discovery of new facts and thus a new reality and new words/terms. The changes brought about by science and technology, greatly destabilized the then established framework and created a new one. This resulted in generation of art forms more consistent with its message, that there was a world outside of humans which could be predicted and controlled, even if in a limited manner. The framework that judged their worth was the relation to the real world.
Now we come to the human side of this article, which I will keep as short as possible, even if this is the reason that prompted its authoring.
The only meaningful way of judging or qualifying an object is through a framework. Without a framework only 'intuitive' assignment is possible. The quotes around it are very relevant and are there to describe that intuition is also based in reality. It is simply a sentence without the intuitioner describing explicitly its reasoning. What does this say about Absurdist art, for example? It says that such a term essentially is meaningless and without grounding.