Bunuel wrote:
We commonly speak of aesthetic judgments as subjective, and in the short term they are, since critics often disagree about the value of a particular contemporary work of art. But over time, the subjective element disappears. When works of art have continued to delight audiences for centuries, as have the paintings of Michelangelo, the music of Bach, and the plays of Shakespeare, we can objectively call them great.
The statements above best support which of the following conclusions?
(A) When Michelangelo, Bach, and Shakespeare were alive, critics disagreed about the value of their work.
(B) The value of a contemporary work of art cannot be objectively measured.
(C) The reputation of a work of art often fluctuates greatly from one generation to the next.
(D) The mere fact that a work of art has endured for centuries does not establish its greatness.
(E) If critics agree about the value of a particular cotemporary work of art, then the work can objectively be called great.
"we commonly speak of aesthetic judgments as subjective, and in the short term, they are" supports B.
A is unsupported. We know critics "often" disagree, but that doesn't necessarily apply to any of these particular artists.
C discusses reputation, which is out of the scope of aesthetic value; it also mentions fluctuation, out of scope once more.
D is out of the scope; we don't discuss works that have "endured" for centuries, only works that have "delighted" for centuries.
E is a distortion, and also a 180. The prompt tells us that works that have delighted for centuries can be called great; we know nothing about modern works except that they ARE subjective (as the quote above showed).