Joyce is not better than Shakespeare and Prince is not better than Mozart.
This is even truer for painting, would anybody say that we are doing better than the Altamira cave painters?
I will say this; I have a clear preference for some modern stuff over the older stuff. The biggest one is modern TV vs. older TV; going back to 1960 or 1970 and trying to watch TV for me is simply infuriating; it's all so damned slow. Actually running it 30% faster (as in, watching it literally sped up 30%) helps quite a bit.
My point is that, in my opinion, there is no progress in art exactly for the reason you have just given that there is no objective "better" to measure progress with.
About TV..., if you are talking about TV shows I wouldn't consider them art at all.
Ernie Kovacs.
Also Playhouse 90.
Also tautological depending on your definition of "art". The definition I favor doesn't disqualify something for the medium it is in, but it certainly isn't the only relevant definition.
To point it out is pleonastic.
The following sentence is tautological.
The previous sentence is tautological and pleonastic.
"TV isn't art" carries a lot of connotation, but no actual denotation. I object to just lobbing the connotation into a conversation and acting as if something has actually been established.