>the reasons people go to see old commissioned freelance
>pieces and stuff from somebody's old decrepit sketchbooks are
>wide and varied and has more to do with what they personally
>value (or perceive they SHOULD value) than any kind of
>objective good.

The only way to measure artistic merit is through objectivity. Objectivity is not bound by a certain set of rules or ideologies, or culture, or age, or socialization. Let's assume that a piece of art was made in a certain era, influenced by a point in time where the culture represented a specific set of ideals. The rebirth felt in the renaissance had a very vibrant, exploratory, and powerful energy. Art, people, information, knowledge, etc. was flowing from the old world and in the process people awoke from the dark and middle ages, which was pure savagery and insanity.

One can argue that "subjective" art from that period could only be understood, felt, enjoyed, etc. by people whom experienced that specific era, as they would be the only ones to feel and understand its roots. However, as we can see, there are pieces of objective art from that era which are just as powerful today, and garner just as much attention. Not all of them, but there are many examples, those are the objectively good pieces of art. Timeless art is able to transcend cultural and time constrictions and touch us today, in the same way it touched the artist in his/her day. The Objective good label is usually given to pieces of art which transcend our socialization and grab us as human beings. The only way to know is to go and experience them yourself.