Response to Lisa's "David Hume and Taste"

Lisa asks: "How can there be a universal agreement on art when we all come from a different background?"

If we look back at the idea of ars poetica, and of significant form, we see that there are in fact works of art that are intrinsically more appealing than other works. There are some amongst us who are seemingly divinely endowed with the ability to combine words in such a way, or two combine shapes, lines, and colors in such a way, as to transcend the subject matter. Subject matter is usually what makes art pertinent and good in one culture and not another, but when you have achieved this near-sublime mastery of your craft, your art is culture-blind.

My question is this: Does this superart really exist? Are there really combinations of words and lines that are inherently superior to other combinations of words and lines? Is this just something that critics through the years have latched onto collectively in order to reinforce their own point of view through strength-by-numbers?