A quick thought on taste and synthesis

Keeping this brief. I have written an entry before about synthesis. Something must happen for a work of art to become a work of Art. It is a soap-like form to try to grasp and explain but you really know art when you see it - or rather you tune into a fully "synthesised" work. Any work that does not attempt this journey is - I feel, trading in "taste" instead; received visual language, a sense of the times maybe, narrative, subject matter that is extraneous or rather exists independently of the facts of the painting- Is there any other kind though? It can be satisfying even to a degree until you are brutally frank with yourself.  We settle for crap too easily in so many things.

I'll leave it at that , no rants . I'm  clearing studio at present, starting summer work, wanted something posted before that.