All art is subversive!
That is not to suggest that it's possible to identify 'art' from 'not art' by determining whether or not a particular work is subversive. By subversive, I mean whatever remains antithetical to established political, social, moral, religious and intellectual structures: that which remains after reductive interpretations have been exhausted, namely, aesthetic value.
It's all too clear that there is nothing that post-capitalist technological ideology, availing itself of corporate ingenuity, can not itself subvert and put to use for its own ends. No music, no visual, literary or dramatic work that can't be packaged and sold, and put to work selling in its turn. Anything that can't be digested and put to use will be perceived (correctly) as antithetical to the mechanisms of this ideology; its existence must either be denied, or destroyed. Condemned as a means to those ends, only an ersatz caricature of aesthetic value survives, where pretence to aesthetic judgement is merely one or another measure of effectiveness.
Critical analysis doesn't need to search for and identify subversive elements in art; it's enough to understand the ideological forces that seek by every means available to capture and enslave it, and to demonstrate the possibility of encountering in a work the remnant, the aesthetic reality. While this reality remains nameless (a name is the first manacle we apply to subjugate and enslave), we can meet it and speak meaningfully of the encounter.
We need a criticism that frees us to meet the aesthetic in all its useless wonder, and to resist and expose those who betray art and artists by delivering the nascent aesthetic reality to the world rendering it fit for the tasks of corporate empire building.