It turns out the gustatory metaphor is nearly exact.
While [consume] is usually too misleading when referring to the relationship between customer and product, in the case of art it's sufficiently accurate. While the art piece itself is not consumed, the information communicated by the art is spiritually devoured.
Bad taste is when the connoisseur prefers art that makes them sicker and
weaker. E.g. if you like alcohol that means you like dead neurons and
brain damage. "I'm too smart and need to be less smart."
Good taste, then, is when the consumer prefers art that makes them stronger and healthier. Art that allows the flowering of wisdom or the healing of old psychic scars.
Notably I've preserved the [eye of the beholder] relationship. On the other hand, we can define an average. Some art is good for very few. Some art is good for nearly everyone. Some art is good for everyone without serious genetic deformities, but the mutations in question are more common than not. Some psychic scars should vanishingly rare and are instead nigh-universal; plus the dose makes the poison et al.