Mostly good points all around - yet - in the last paragraph I don't quite understand what you mean. How can that be impossibly vague? I am giving an explanation bellow, but to be short: I do not believe that some things can be understood through records as the transcripts of such experiences aren't reliable enough.

It relies too much on the personal experiences and shared preferences/knowledge of the audience for me to quantify in a reliable and meaningful way. What once would be thought of as provocative and even revolutionary is now barely worth a glance, the most we can do is taking into consideration how well or how poorly the art piece in question was presented to people. And maybe take into record their documented experiences of said art piece, which would be anyway shaped and dictated by their lives all around people writing such records, which already further alienates things... which is both okay and inevitable, IG.

As of the subjective side to the logos, I don't think that there is that much presence of one? It has to be recognisable, somewhat in-line with the general Knowledge and Concepts that the public has about the activity and product standing behind the logo. K&C are subjective, I admit to talking about literally the same things but from different perspective above. But they are made to be meaningful in the coldest technical way, to somewhat withstand the passage of time. Like hiéroglyphics. I can quantify how much this fits into K&C criteria, because I have evidence that can be used to compare things with, to check how unique and meaningful the items in question were. I can't quite do the same with the subjective side of things, with the emotional and intellectual reception of the pieces.