I think there’s plenty of bad art. For that matter, if there wasn’t then artists could never improve, since improvement obviously implies going from “bad” to “good”.
That say, that’s an entirely different matter from how harsh someone should be about criticizing it. That depends on all sorts of issues; the adult versus child one was just mentioned. There’s also whether it’s to their face or to a third party, how pretentious they are about their art, how much you care about them as a person and so on. For an extreme example to paraphrase one actor, “the movie was terrible but the house it bought was beautiful”; if the artist themself calls it bad refusing to do so yourself seems a bit silly.
I saw it in person and that is what made me hate it so much.
I had the misfortune to visit the Guggenheim during a major showing of his work. I don’t appreciate it at all.
Valid, your opinion. .
But I believe my point stands that his work is highly regarded by experts and adored by many (including me) which elevates it above “crappy”.
To the OP, yes there is many examples of bad art.
Checking, we’re talking about Mark Rothko? Then it’s fine to be as insulting about his art as you please for the very significant reason that he’s been dead since 1970 and is long past caring. He doesn’t have any feelings to hurt anymore.
insulting a dead mans art is also morally wrong?
Why? He’s dead and beyond harm. And there being no harm removes most of the moral aspects.
If there wasn’t bad art, there wouldn’t be good art, it would all just be art.
There are multiple aspects to considering art, two big ones are emotion and craft.
If art stirs emotions, as a deliberate act by the artist, it can be good art, regardless of whether “a child” could do it.
If a work doesn’t stir you to emotion, but exhibits craft, the ability of the artist to do an objectively difficult thing, it can be good art, even if it’s not personally your bag.
Great art has both.
Bad art has neither.
Artists need thick skins. People who can’t take criticism shouldn’t post their works publicly, because someone, somewhere will hate it. I used to post quite a bit of art online (a few of which were published in books) and I learned that 10% of the people who see it will love it, 10% of the people who see it will hate it, and the rest will be completely indifferent.
but what if they just scroll if they don’t like it instead of being a bit petty?
They should just scroll, but some people enjoy putting down other people’s work. There just seems to be a certain percentage of the population that does this. I can’t explain it.
Constructive feedback should not get ignored. You can learn from that. But if someone is just posting nasty feedback for the sake of being nasty, and it’s not constructive, it’s best to ignore it.
Here are two examples of very bad art. First “Spin Painting”. Just glop some paint on a canvas and spin it. : Untitled Spin Painting by Damien Hirst | M.S. Rau
Second, Thomas Kinkade.. While spin painting takes no effort, at least Kinkade put some effort into it.
However, in my opinion both represent low quality, ‘bad’, art.
This “scrolling” isn’t the same thing as going in a museum or looking at a personal collection, live and in person.
It just isn’t.
It makes a huge difference.
Internet artists do some beautiful things. But I can’t really frame a piece and hang it on my wall.
Now, with AI and me, in my attempts to discern it, I’m not able to regard it properly. This is a me problem. I know. So I just don’t look at it.
If a person posts art online, just like writing a story or posting photos you will be asking for opinions. And you will get them, good or bad.
Joe Schmo from Nowheresville does not care if the artists continues to produce art or not.
Spin painting is craft. Not a fine art.
Same with the “flow painting”.
Kincade is very loved. It’s not my cuppa, but people do love it.
Interesting, I’ve never met anyone that admitting to loving his work. I don’t really care, if pressed, I’ll call it Hotel or Jigsaw puzzle art. But it doesn’t invoke a strong visceral feeling in me like the afore mentioned Rothko.
Huh. Fair enough, we all like what we like, and don’t what we don’t. But I’m really glad you were never in a position to make Rothko quit – I love his work. If I ever find myself in Texas (which I hope will not be soon), one of my goals is to visit the Rothko Chapel.
Art is pretty subjective. That doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as bad or good, but there will never be universal consensus. For some reason, that bothers a lot of people.
That gets into the meaning of “bad”. I think that it would be hard to argue that Kinkade is poorly executed or unskillfully done. So “bad” must mean not liking the style or subject.
My Daddy, of all people, loved Kincades “art”.
He was fond of buying gifts with it.
We loved that calender for Christmas. Tell you what! 
Of course there is bad art.
Kitsch is bad art.
There was a painter in Vienna who made horrible pictures.
The interior decorator of trumps Comrade Krasnov’s apartments makes bad interiors. And bad working space environments.
Elvis made horrible movies.
I’ll better stop. Bad art depresses me, don’t want to think of it. But it definitely exists.
Opinion. But the art world disagrees.
FWIW, I don’t consider it art.
Not being snarky, but did you see the link I posted? I believe his work is poorly executed.
Must resist changing my username…
