No it isn't. If I saw one of your paintings and liked it better, there would be no way for you to prove me wrong. My opinion might be highly unpopular, but that wouldn't make it objectively incorrect.
Some cities are more beautiful than others. Prague is more beautiful than Detroit.
That said, a few posts back a commenter mentioned that the Mona Lisa is "objectively better" than anything they made; while I won't comment on aesthetics and appreciation, the assertion that the artist is more skilled in the arts than the poster is something definitely objectively true, simply because of education and experience. That's no guarantee that the outcome is better, but still.
If you look at historical architecture patterns (mostly pre-WWI) they mirror how art has changed over time.
It's not that Impressionism came about and Renaissance became shit, it's that both are good and important stylistic contributions.
It's not that Gothic architecture came about then all the Romanesque stuff sucked. Both were good and unique.
We run into the same problem as "all art is equal" when we tend to express the belief that because we live in the time period we're complaining about that if only we waited a few hundred years we would recognize that our current building patterns are actually really good. That's just not the case.
Well, no, a better quarterback is just a member of a team. They don't dictate whether the team wins or not, they just contribute to it if they are good. Though we can't say whether a given quarterback is good or not because we don't have objective criteria to determine that. It's all relative and arbitrary - as I'm sure you'd agree with.
> What does a better painting do—win art contests?
Maybe? Why not?
> Judged by what objective criteria? Art doesn't have rules the way football does.
Football rules are arbitrary criteria, not objective.
> A painting can't "win at being art";
Why not? The Mona Lisa has the most viewers so maybe that means it is the best art?