Tastes

There is a very good reason as to why different preferences in art are called different "tastes". It's because people's preferences for what they hang on the wall or display in their living rooms or attend at a theater vary as much as people's preferences for food. For the most part, I do believe that much of what we are willing to digest as a common group depends on the culture from which the observer is coming. For example, someone of United States descent might be less inclined to appreciate a nude painting than another culture thanks to our roots as a country in Puritanism.

Regardless of the cultural aspect, personal tastes seem to be rather consistent in many people, or to borrow a term from experimental literature, people demonstrate internal consistency. That is to mean that tastes draw people toward the same kinds of paintings which in turn individually demonstrate their personal tastes. Let's say that a fan of ironic art walks into a gallery and spots the two paintings on the UH 440 class's group page hanging up on the wall. That person would purchase both of the paintings because they both demonstrate irony, and it would not be a long stretch to claim that they are meant to be displayed in the same collection or even in close proximity. Since the man is making a monkey face, and the monkey is posing for a portrait the way a man might, it is easy to make several conclusions with regard to what the artist could be saying.
Because they seem to be of similar origin, message, artist, and/or genre, they could be considered tasteful.

One thing I would like to point out about taste is that it does not determine what art truly is. When someone claims that a piece is not art, it is because s/he is using the term "art" dripping with connotation. "Art" does not imply good or bad: That's the job of "skill".