You’re crossing into one of my favorite topics of discussion, which is the bridge between art and pscyhology. Every year the Academy Award winners rarely include a high-grossing film. A high-grossing film oddly enough represents a film that through some mechanism entertains the audience. The Academy voters, however, do not view entertainment value as a selling point for a film. There are exceptions, of course - Titanic and Lord of the Rings, for example. Gladiator also did well at the box office. In general, though, what the Academy views as a superior film is often not what the people want.
Cars are one example, though not as good since they’re not solely aesthetic. I happen to like the Camry’s styling - I liked the last two, and not so much the several before that. I and probably many others have a bias towards liking the Camry because it’s got a good reputation and is known to be a very reliable and practical vehicle. (In other words, there may be people who learn to like it.) In this manner it becomes very difficult to judge a vehicle’s styling because it goes beyond the interpretation of art.
I guess the same thing goes for paintings. Nobody would dare to claim Da Vinci was not as good a painter as Coolidge. Yet, in many cases, the Dogs Playing Poker series of paintings has more mass appeal than the Mona Lisa.