I read it differently, but I don't think the author was saying art has no quality in the way you're interpreting it at the end of your sentence, in the sense of value or anything to offer. I interpreted them to mean that there's no way to objectively determinine that value, so practically speaking there's no objective quality in art. I think there's even a sentence or two where they try to make clear that they're not questioning art's value, just our ability to determine that value in real terms.
I agree that the author's choice of words was probably kind of poor. But I interpreted the article to mean that as it becomes more difficult to determine inherent worth in an area, success becomes more and more dependent on social networking effects per se. If you need a hammer, it has a specific function, and you can quantify that function in various ways. But if you're talking about something where the value is unknown, either because no one knows the ultimate truth, or because it's based on subjective experience or something, you can't quantify it, so you go back to networks.
This author has been making the rounds a bit in the last few years, and I think they've done research on these topics. Their argument is that network effects are very strong, and account for a lot of variability in outcomes that are popularly attributed to individuals (broadly defined).
In studies, people - including untrained people - can fairly reliably tell the difference between messy abstract art made by trained artists and messy abstract messes made by kids messing around with paint.
So there seems to be a quality of visual intelligence present in at least some art which is not present in non-expert splashes.
I would be surprised if you couldn't train a neural network to recognise the difference.
This is different to having an explicit formal model of "the quality that is different."
It's also different to a financially successful artistic career. All kinds of things can kill or promote a career which have nothing to do with the art itself.
Likewise for market pricing, which is always based on what galleries and auction houses hope they can get away with - often in a hyper-inflated market where art is reliably used for money laundering and tax evasion and other pastimes which have absolutely nothing to do with what it looks like.
These are all great points, thanks for writing that out. I see what you are getting at -- I agree with your take the author probably needed to choose their words more carefully. I had a hard time getting past the sentence "But I do mean to say there is no quality in art." The brutal wrongness of it so fundamental and stark... it was like a car crash where I couldn't look away.
I agree that the author's choice of words was probably kind of poor. But I interpreted the article to mean that as it becomes more difficult to determine inherent worth in an area, success becomes more and more dependent on social networking effects per se. If you need a hammer, it has a specific function, and you can quantify that function in various ways. But if you're talking about something where the value is unknown, either because no one knows the ultimate truth, or because it's based on subjective experience or something, you can't quantify it, so you go back to networks.
This author has been making the rounds a bit in the last few years, and I think they've done research on these topics. Their argument is that network effects are very strong, and account for a lot of variability in outcomes that are popularly attributed to individuals (broadly defined).