I believe that good Art expresses an idea or value that is worth expressing.  The idea or value does not have to be obviously apparent and it's alright if the audience has difficulty figuring it out.  I also believe that good Art has to be aesthetically pleasing, even if it isn't beautiful by traditional standards.  Another qualification of good Art is it should be creative and unique.  Any and all forms of Art have influences and are imitating something but being able to create a piece of Art that has either never been done before or is a new and unique spin on something older is important.  I also think good Art should require some sort of technical skill such as an adept painters stroke or exceptional proficiency with a musical instrument.  But I think the need of technical skill can be alleviated if the piece of Art is particularly creative and unique







Art can be considered bad if it represents a superficial theme or idea that is not worth expressing.  That of course is entirely sujective to my opinion but that is what I believe.  Because I am not very fond of consumerism and materialism, there are very view visual advertisements such as corporate logos, that I personally will appreciate.  I simply think the motives behind this kind of Art are not good, especially when compared to what I consider good Art.  I also think Art is bad if it has no sort of theme or meaning behind it and is also not technically skillful or creative.  Art can be especially bad if it is those things plus it has no focus and looks like it was just thrown together hodge-podge. 




Maybe this isn't great example because its probably really funny in the context in which they used it on the show 30 Rock.  But without that context this Bigfoot-Mermaid-Rainbow painting is pretty awful.