One important test as the whether a picture has any value or quality (aka is it "good") is its "narrative" element. This is true for the most representational to the most abstract of pictures - it doesn't matter. The picture needs to reveal new messages and images on subsequent viewings and not exhaust itself in one "Big Bang" the first time you look at it and then having a lessening impact on each subsequent viewing.

The narrative is how the picture reveals itself to you over time (it's also your story, and ultimately, only you can judge it).

If you are impressed with a picture on its first viewing, but it leaves you with nothing when you are gone, chances are it isn't very good. But if it continues to call itself to memory without your asking it, if it keeps insisting at the back of your mind then there is probably something to it.

If, on each subsequent viewing its impact is a little less - or even if it merely remains the same as the first time you saw it, it's probably a dud. (This is also why good pictures sometimes take a little more time and effort than a one-trick-pony type photograph).

This is of course only one factor, though without it the picture probably fails

This picture of Lartigue's definitely falls into the category of continually revealing more about itself.