You are very clearly asserting what you consider to be bad art, and one can’t define “bad art” without defining “art”.
The idea that “great art” should “connect the viewer, unambiguously, to the emotion or experience of a time and place and share something about the the human experience that isn’t easily communicated”, is nonsense. One of my favorite artists Piet Mondrian, is an acknowledged master artist and father of the Dutch School. Most of his work is as abstract as it gets, but it conveys nothing of the human experience. His classic works are an exploration in the concept of balance between line and color, and his disparate use of seemingly random straight lines and primary colors to achieve it. It is not about beauty or truth, but intellectually stimulating. Great art, I think, is something which impacts a large number of people, for whatever reason, including old covers of the Saturday Evening Post.
Even if you consider Lichtenstein’s art to be “one liners”, it is still excellent. It’s like a piece of chocolate in the middle of a dreary workday. That’s always a good thing (unless you are diabetic).
But price is not the same as great art, particularly with some high priced stuff today. That is sometimes a reflection of investors or really rich people wanting to show they have style, taste or lots of money. On that point I would agree.