I'm wondering what others think about this distinction?
My feeling is that most of us, most of the time, (including many "professional" critics) mistake the latter for the former.
I would argue that works of art can be demonstrated to have (or to lack) specific inherent value, that they can be compared to one another based on such value, and that not personally responding to the values in a given work of art doesn't mean the work is crap.
A personal example. The Joshua Tree is demonstrably the greater artistic achievement than The Unforgettable Fire (I don't think I need to enumerate why). Nonetheless, I find myself replaying TUF far more often than TJT for a number of personal reasons.
Another example: many an unwilling student can be heard to mutter "Shakespeare sucks!" in English class. Again, that's a demonstrably false statement and just makes the individual who utters it look the fool. Of course, it's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't like reading Shakespeare," but one shouldn't mistake one's inclinations for the worth of the work.