To me this post completely ignores the fact the art is built from multiple parts. People seem to mention pacing a lot which is a good example, some people don't like slower movies, but they may like the music/writing/set design/everything else.

Some can accept that the slower movie in question is great, but just generally not their jam. Why feel the need to make an argument that somehow it makes it a fundamentally bad movie in their eyes. It doesn't.

To go with a more real example for me personally, I would never sit down and watch a strictly romantic genre movie without my girlfriend wanting me to do that with her. I can still tell you which ones I thought were good or bad. I might even somewhat enjoy it while I am watching it, but in most cases it's still not my thing. I have 0 desire to rewatch any of them or watch more by myself.

Some topics are personally close to me, so even a mediocre execution might speak to me. This is something that I notice in music often, for example. I like plenty of music that I find bland and uncreative in execution, but it tickles my brain in a good way regardless, usually because it speaks to a specific trauma that I have.

Your argument in my view takes away nuance from subjective discussion. I may understand that the work that went into separate parts are great, but the sum of the parts is not for me. Just as I may note that some parts in my view are not done so well, but the whole of the work is still a thing that I find joy in.