[lordbest]

Objective appraisal of art is impossible because it would rely on the assumption that everyone is viewing and interpreting the art in exactly the same way with the same priorities and preferences. Which is impossible, thus objective art is impossible.

I can only speak for myself, but for a character like Spider-woman I have the following priorities regarding costume:
Does it look like she can fight effectively in it?
Does it look like it will provide some measure of protection?
Does it fit with how I think the character would dress?

I have some relevant conscious biases:
I hate body stockings and swimsuit style costumes
I like colourful costumes
I like layered costumes

Based on all this the new Spider-woman costume is superior on almost every front, to me. I don't hate the old one, it has some nostalgia value and I do like the bright colours and pattern. But the new one is better.

Your comment that the old costume is objectively more of a superheroine costume is clearly false. Nothing about a spandex bodystocking, complete with breast socks, says superheroine. It says fetish model. The intention behind those old costumes was to have the superheroines as close to naked as possible for a presumed straight male audience to enjoy. Again, not superheroic.

As for art needing to depict something literally, I've seen abstract cartoon images of cats for example that capture more of a cats personality than I've seen in photorealistic artwork of cats. What a dog or cat looks like can be conveyed simply, what a dog or cat *is* less so. There is more to art than just blindly recreating something however perfectly.
It is ironic that you criticise teachers for embracing aesthetic functionalism when you are making that same argument yourself, that art is objectively good based on how faithfully it recreates something.

You talk about the intent of the author, but if one cannot judge art without knowing the intent of th author, then it becomes impossible to judge art without knowing the intent of the author. It also ignores the fact that how the old outfit was drawn varied through the years and from artist to artist. So by your criteria in order to judge this costume we need to know the intentions of EVERY artist that ever drew it, which is impossible. Can you even say what Sal Buscema intended when he created the outfit? How do you address the fact that it was considerably less form fitting and bodystocking-like in 1977 than it became in later decades? Or the fact it includes a cowl when later depictions did not?