No. There is no such thing as objectively bad art, just as there is no objectively good art. This is an opinion that I fervently preach. Art is entirely subjective, and to hold objective standards to a medium like that entirely defeats the purpose of art. What are the objective standards? Conforming to previous modes of expression in an attempt to create something new off previous works? How does that explain shifts in artistic expression, such as Picasso's unique style of painting. Things like color theory, music theory, etc are not "theories" in the sense that they are scientific theories that can be proven, they are simply methods that previous creators have used to produce their art, and when in doubt one can look to that "rulebook" to create guidelines on how the form should be presented. That is not to say that those "rules" are set in stone, merely just a path someone somewhere already took and it may be wise to follow down that path as a form of structure for whatever art form you are producing, emulating them. The whole purpose of artistic "rulebooks" is such that people can use them as a sort of template to guide them. Chaos with no form of direction is just that, chaotic, but following the rules and intentionally breaking them is what shifts artistic dynamics and produces some of the most lovely forms of expression. Art has constantly been evolving since the dawn of time, and constantly expanding. Note, not necessarily getting "better" over time, just expanding and becoming different.
Everyone can create good art. Why do you believe that only a preset amount of people can create art? If the material moves someone, any one person, in any way then it can be considered to have done its job in producing emotion. You have no standards to base something off of as good or bad other than your own subjective perception. Hell, you don't even have any standards as to what qualifies as art to begin with. Are films art? Why? Is music art? why? is cooking art? why? All of those can be considered artistic expressions in form, all have the potential to induce emotions in people, as Aladynn said on more than a superficial level. Do you think that art can only be considered good if it reaches a wide audience and has a lot of people clamoring for it to be seen? I have heard some of the most beautiful songs that had less than 10 views on youtube, or even just coffee shop guitarists that I would consider quality art, yet they don't have the popularity of popular songs. Would that somehow make them less relevant / objectively good? It's very arrogant to assume that only the art you assume is good can be considered good, and that's why critics' words should never be taken to heart because it is their own analysis of what the art means to them. Sometimes it may mean nothing to them, them being unable to relate, sometimes it can be everything and the most moving piece ever. In this vein there is no "bad" art just as there is no "good" art, as the opinions of whether something is bad or good is entirely subjective and has no standing that everyone universally agrees is good. I believe that it is the onus of the critic to define a set of "rules" when judging the art, rather than just handwaving and saying "this is bad, this is good," as the context behind their decision is what matters. What one person despises in an art form could be something that another praises, and you can't just separate critics from regular people because the art is directed at everyone not just the critics reviewing on their own subjective terms.
