Objectivists know that there is one objective reality. There is a right and there is a wrong. A is A and B is B. But how do we judge art then? For example I like country music, many people on this board probably do not. Is one of us wrong or is a subjective view of art acceptable?
There are certain objective criteria for judging art. I suggest you read The Romantic Manefesto, where Miss Rand explains it in detail. Suffice to say that music is largely undefined by science (although it is not undefinable).
As for country music, I have heard country I like and country I did not like. With most people, you will find that they will focus on what they like and “tune out” what they dislike in art… difference of opinion is often a matter of what you’re capable of ignoring and what is revolting enough that you won’t see any beauty in the remainder.
Of course, ideally, nobody would have to tune out anything, and nobody here should be satisfied with art the way it is.
But in short, don’t worry if others don’t like country music. So long as you can identify the positive values that you like in it, you’re good. 
Thanks for the clarification. I will have to pick up Rand’s The Romantic Manefesto when I am done with The Fountainhead. So am I right in saying that the main object in art criticism is being able to identify the aspects of the art which I find appealing?
This is off the top of my head and not a direct quote but Rand’s definition of art is something like: a selective recreation of what a person finds to be metaphysically important. And to me that would seem to imply that your criticism of the art, in this case country music, would correlate with whether you find the music to be in line with your values. All values are objective, but depending on the context of your life, you personally may value that particular music more than others. It seems to me personal context is involved in what kind of music a person likes. But context does not negate objectivity. It just varies from person to person. That said I also have not read the Romantic Manefesto so all this is my interpretation and should not be taken to be the Objectivist position.
Thanks for the clarification. I will have to pick up Rand’s The Romantic Manefesto when I am done with The Fountainhead. So am I right in saying that the main object in art criticism is being able to identify the aspects of the art which I find appealing?
It’s more than that: art criticism has two aspects, from what I recall. First, there is the metaphysical message that the artist gives, and second there is the skill with which he gives it. Theme and style, if you will.
It is possible to say, “that is a very well done painting… and I hate it.”
There’s a lot more to this, of course. Miss Rand will tell you better than I can. :worry:
So am I right in saying that the main object in art criticism is being able to identify the aspects of the art which I find appealing?
The virtues that you find appealing are derived from the values you hold- of which there is an objective right and wrong.
The isolation aspect involved in art does not come in the evaluation of the work. You should not abstract an artwork into its essentials. A good work of art is good in its entirety. The isolation/abstraction involved in art comes in its creation. The goal of the Romantic artist is to isolate the concepts which he holds to be virtuous, and then present these concepts on the perceptual level.