Response to Skyla's response to "Life Changing Art"

Is there really such thing as a bad artist or is a bad artist not actually an artist at all?

I think yes, bad artists do exist in the world.

We'll pick on an imaginary Joe named Mitch. Mitch is a fellow who fails to communicate the message he intended to be communicated in his art. You already sort of touched on this in your post (which was very well written I thought), but I disagree on one area. You said something like "If there is true meaning behind it, the observer will appreciate it." Well, Mitch here tried his little heart out to communicate the sadness of his life, but everyone who approaches his painting can't help but smile. In this case, Mitch produced the opposite emotion he was intending - thus his art is "bad." Some would argue that the fact that his art induces some type of emotional response means that it is good art. I disagree - he in fact produced the polar emotion, and so he gets negative points.

Another example is music. We'll use a real life example this time, mostly just so I can pick on a 90's boyband. N'Sync! To the best of my musical understanding, they made a mockery of important themes in life: love, friendship, et cetera. The fact that they so mangled these themes, dressed them up in chintzy colors and kitschy phrasings is Bad. It's just plain Bad. Some may appreciate their form of expression, but I for one believe the world would be a more integritous place sans N'Sync.

Is N'Sync bad art? Does their popularity, however fleeting, warrant the title of "good art?"

If Susie got Mitch's message, and Susie alone, did Mitch succeed as an artist?