In short, is what you like beautiful?
Is beauty simply a sensation, a perception?
Is beauty subjective, that is, with respect to the person or to a certain group of people?
Is it something that is judged functional to the purpose of an observed object, in practice to the properties suited to best perform the material or immaterial function for which it exists?
Is it what causes the observer or the one who experiences it a spiritual or physical pleasure?

These and other similar questions are the heart of the whole question. Relativism would like to tell us that there is nothing absolute in human behavior, that is, that there are no valid points of reference for everyone in all environments.
I believe this is not true. However, there must be something that frees the concepts of good or bad from the judgment of beauty or ugliness that is attributed to something.

The ancient Greeks said καλόσ και αγαθόσ (kalòs kài agathos) unifying the concept of "good" (αγαθόσ) and the concept of "beautiful" (καλόσ). Therefore the Greek conception of good was connected to the action of man and it was argued that there is a complementarity between "beautiful" and "good": what is beautiful must be good and what is good is necessarily beautiful.
In other words, the term καλόσ for the ancient Greeks refers not only to what is "beautiful" because of its sensitive aspect, but also that beauty is related to "good" moral behavior (ἀγαθόσ). In this sense, even if a thing or a person is apparently beautiful, they cannot be if they are morally wrong or behave badly.
In fact, however, the feeling that the "nobility" or "dignity" of something or someone cannot always coincide with that of "beauty". For example, a beautiful man or woman, perfect in body and mind, is not necessarily "good", and like Lucifer they may look beautiful, but in reality be pure evil.

Therefore I think that the first characteristic of a work of art must be precisely this: it must be a work that requires skill, technical knowledge and must be durable over time, that is, it must convey something to the observer. In fact, even if the centuries pass and even trends and tastes change, the majority of nationals can always be impressed by a work of art. This does not mean having only an impression, a sensation, but also learning something from what the artist wanted to convey. So I do not accept the sentence that states that aesthetic beauty is inseparable from trends and taste: it is a very fleeting concept. Indeed, reasonable and fair people must always understand the beauty of a true work of art. Of course, over the centuries, this thinking has been widely developed, and beauty in art has always been the engine of many works and reflections of artists and of all mankind.

The artistic expression and its qualities are suddenly perceived when looking at this beautiful image of an Egyptian queen painted a few thousand years ago. Its beauty can be felt. This painting is a beautiful work of art, which also provides the viewer with a lot of information about the subject of the work and the people who made it.
The same can be said for the ancient Greek artists who produced masterpieces of sculpture. In them, even when they represent male or female nudity, there is nothing sordid or perverse, and the admirable perfection of the figures speaks to us very significantly of the spirit of civilization that produced them.
Going on from that moment, one can find innumerable masterpieces of Western art that are striking for their content and their growing perfection anyone who is not a brute or a madman.
I've heard opinions and did read reviews about statues and sculptures in general, of paintings and frescoes, and also of works of all kinds of poetry or prose or of any beautiful object.

So I allow myself a rough example of what is NOT a work of art (in my opinion):

1) the metal cans full of something I do not know, with the label: "ARTIST SHIT" are not a work of art, but the product of a sick mind (mind? So to speak).
2) The white canvases with parallel cuts on them, jokes by a certain Burri, although they have been scented with money, are not a work of art. But while they are less disgusting and crazy than jars of human excrement they are still stupid things, or a cheap operation to build a character ... (this is actually the real thing).
Such things teach no one anything, and they certainly will not last, or at least will be remembered in the distant future only for their intrinsic nothingness, for their stupidity. In short, bad smells.

A separate discussion must be made for modern art, that of the centuries after the Renaissance, up to today. In the last two centuries there have been very different forms of expression that did alternate nonsenses with play of color and innovative techniques in painting and in general in the representation of reality or in abstraction.
The same has happened simultaneously for literature and poetry. The same can be said for sculpture, painting and literature of all the civilizations of the earth since the moment they have evolved sufficiently to produce such works; which by virtue of their quality and characteristics transmit sensations of some kind to those who benefit from them.

PHOTOGRAPHY AND CINEMA
The seventh art was born in the twentieth century, after the previous photographic technique, and requires a profound separate reflection.
In fact, if aesthetics is the philosophical reflection on art, one of its problems concerns the different perception of the values ​​contained in this new type of artistic expression.
Contingent environments, politics and peculiarities of the country inherent in a film are still prisoners of it, because this means of expression is too recent and full of subjectivity, and must also deal with the satisfaction of the paying public.
There are also some productions subsidized by the public as such are intended to satisfy the needs - that is the partial and perhaps tendentious thesis - of those who pay them.
These thefts of public money are similar to some State subsidies for outdated communications activities which alone would fail due to unprofitable prices and lack of sales, such as paper newspapers in some countries.
Returning to cinema, and generally to products of this type, at the moment, in my opinion, one cannot judge the artistic content of a film without being influenced by contingency and prejudices. In fact, different individuals almost always give conflicting opinions on the same film, which is not often the case for other arts.

For example let's imagine what should happen if I say that I like Akira Kurosawa's "Rashomon" and I don't like "Rome open city" or "Bicycle Thieves" or when I say that the movie "Avatar" was a new and very interesting idea, while "Star trek" although full of special effects is banal and monotonous, unoriginal and repetitive, all in all it is similar to the old TV movies of Rin Tin Tin and Rusty that I liked as a child - some still remember 'Yahoo, Rinty'?
I bet it would cause a flurry of approvals and even a storm of disapproval.

So, when we talk about aesthetic philosophy with regard to cinematographic and photographic art in general, I personally prefer not to risk judgments. If I like a movie that's fine, I don't necessarily say it's a work of art and should be appreciated by others who don't have the same tastes or cultural background.
It happens just like in terms of food or partner of the opposite sex.

BUT I INSIST THAT A JUDGMENT ON BEAUTY IS NOT JUST A FACT OF 'SURVEYS', WHICH DEPEND VERY MUCH ON WHEN, WHERE, AND WHY, BUT IT IS A JUDGMENT THAT CAN BE BASED ON OBJECTIVE FACTS.

Lino Bertuzzi