No, that is too broad, even within art. Obviously, some elements such as physical technique, aural acuity, mental adroitness, perhaps musical knowledge, are clearly defined and objectively measurable. However, the internal effect of music on an individual mind, emotive and intellectual associations and so on, are essentially qualia, and therefore whether or not they are good is purely personal, that is to say relative.
So it is perfectly possible for any individual to be highly appreciative of, say, Cziffra's or Katsaris's improvisation in the former senses while remaining indifferent to, or even actively disliking its musical sound. Couple this with variation in the actual modes of thought going on in improvisation and the whole process becomes very complicated, in both execution and perception.
What I meant was that all the objective "goods", if you like to call them that, are only important for an individual creator to the extent they can bring joy and facility to his own subjective "good", which latter I feel is all that matters in the end. I think we all go through periods of emulation when we are young, but with age comes the realisation that it is pointless, even rather sad, to pursue somebody else's dream in any creative artistic endeavour.