Can subjectivity make a fallacy not a fallacy?

Professional artist A creates paintings. 

Person 1: Artist A's artwork is bad because he is a Biden supporter. 

Now, I know this is usually a non sequitur fallacy because the two things are completely unrelated. But, since artwork being good or bad is subjective does that change things? Say person 1 has negative feelings about Biden, and so when he looks at the artwork of a Biden supporter he gets negative feelings and it makes the artwork look bad to him. Or, maybe he is just lying for political reasons. How would we then tell if its a logical fallacy or not? 

This reminds me of the post a few weeks about not finding a trans woman attractive only after one realizes she is trans. Art is subjective, and it is possible that knowing unfavorable things about the artist can sway one's opinion. Another example, I honestly am not attracted to beautiful women with lousy personalities. I would say, "She is not attractive because she is a horrible human being." The clear implication, because we are dealing with an obviously subjective term, is that she is not attractive to me.

Regardless, we are not talking about an argument here; we are talking about an opinion (i.e., an expression of one's personal preferences), so no fallacy. This is unlike saying Artist A's claim that vaccines are safe and effective is wrong because he's a Biden supporter . The truth of the claim is objective, or independent of the mind - not an opinion.

Preferences are largely arational; that is, we can't find a rational basis for having them nor can we find them irrational. If you think the art sucks because it was painted by a Biden supporter, then so be it.