The basis of which is that Quality - like all of the facets oof Reality, such as "Beauty", or "Value" - is indefinable, or definable only in relative terms.
Science as a Religion will do me fine. You only have to look at Dawkins to realise that he is as fanatical as any Jesuit in defending HIS Religion. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
This doesn't mean anyone will immediately be able to take a beautiful photo - or even that I can, to order - but the rules are there, and to some extent they can be quantified.
There are also studies of facial beauty that will tell you the exact proportions that make each face beautiful - or not.
There are certainly more nebulous and vague perceptions which are more difficult to parse. Abstract art would be very much harder to quantify - but it's a challenge for many humans too.
So I don't think you can rely on a feelgood catch-all like quality to understand these things.
But that was one of the points I made - in the arts, it's more about unquantified opinion, and the origins and roots of those opinions aren't tested.
It's more about 'I feel this is...' This works just fine for some things, but is a very different perceptual mode to the one required for science.
