Better to be vaguely right than precisely wrong.
If you need a statistician to know whether art matters, then art doesn't matter. Looking for dung where the cow never browsed, statistical mistakes are widespread.
Bayes theorem is more often about "how" than about "why".
"How" uses algebra as medium but does not give a clue about the actual aim.
"Why" refers to the target : adjusting risks (probabilities) to actual hazards; it's like drawing only what you have before your eyes. Conditional probabilities are easy to represent with algebraic symbols but very difficult to represent as physical entities (for our brains).
To understand the above picture, one may start from a vague prior idea of what the girl is doing, but intuitively we have to take into account what we actually see : cat's paws had to be cleaned before the statisticians had begun sharpening their pencils.
Clearly, you have a higher risk of dying from elephant hazards than being eaten by a shark.
These worldwide statistics are true, but not useful. One needs to adjust risks to actual life hazards.
See also "posterior probabilities"
The theory can represent arbitrarily fine-grained graphic degrees of plausibility intermediate between good art and bad art because drawing is thinking on paper.
"We art-worlders were right to jump to the defense of appropriation art. Today’s culture would clearly be poorer without Warhol’s Campbell Soups, Brillo Boxes and Flowers, inspiring us for six decades now."
One possibility is just chance.
Bayes theorem without rushing for an algebraic description because understanding math firstly refer to common psychology before any run to the art of hard-to-understand-but-fashionable symbolic representation.