The distinction between “good” and “bad” art is inherently subjective and multifaceted, often varying based on cultural context, personal taste, and the prevailing norms of the time. Historically, works that are initially criticized or unpopular may later be reevaluated and recognized as groundbreaking or influential. For instance, Alexander Pope’s works, initially criticized in their time, are now revered for their wit, satire, and literary craftsmanship, demonstrating how critical and public reception can evolve over centuries.

Similarly, contemporary examples like hyperpop music (e.g., Charli XCX’s work) highlight how art can polarize critics and audiences. What one critic dismisses as lacking in traditional merit may be celebrated by others for its innovation, experimental nature, or its ability to challenge conventions. In such cases, the “goodness” of art often hinges on its ability to provoke thought, evoke emotions, or push boundaries, rather than conforming to established norms.

Ultimately, the distinction between “good” and “bad” art is fluid and contextual, shaped by individual perspectives, societal values, and the evolving nature of artistic expression. It underscores the diversity of human creativity and the ongoing dialogue between creators, critics, and audiences that shapes our understanding and appreciation of art across time and genres.