IMO B

A: When Michelangelo, Bach, and Shakespeare were alive, critics disagreed about the value of their work.

This fact is not mentioned in the argument. Probably the critics did agree about the value of their work probably they did not. So this choice is irrelevant.

B: The value of a contemporary work of art cannot be objectively measured.

The argument says that aesthetic judgments are subjective only for a short period of time. If the critics disagree about the value of contemporary modern art that means their judgment is subjective ie not objective (since subjective is the antonym of objective.)

C: The reputation of a work of art often fluctuates greatly from one generation to the next.

This makes a strong statement. The reputation of art might fluctuate but not 'often'.

D: The mere fact that a work of art has endured for centuries does not establish its greatness

We are not discussing what factors establish a work of arts greatness. Since this point is not supported by the argument, its irrelevant.

E: If critics agree about the value of a particular contemporary work of art, then the work can objectively be called great.

When works of art have continued to delight audiences for centuries, we can objectively call them great.

We don't know who these audiences specifically are. So we cannot conclude that only if critics agree, will the work be considered great. This point is hence irrelevant.

OA - B

Thanks mals24.

I totally lost the plot with this one. I thought Contemporary art was different from contemporary modern art i.e. it was just general. So I was just lost!

I like the explanation on B

In my opinion B is the most logical one