(In advance: For purposes of brevity, I'm going 
to use the term "art" to encompass all creative 
outlets.) 

On the one hand, there are a number of things -- 
certain techniques -- that usually accompany what 
is generally recognized as "good" art. These are 
often things lacking from what is generally 
recognized as "bad" art. But I disagree that the 
mere *presence* of these techniques, even if 
they're correctly executed, automatically makes 
the art "good". The intention of art isn't about 
the tecniques used to create it -- the techniques 
are nothing more than methods of using a certain 
media (be it paint, print, or something else) to 
communicate with the people viewing the art. The 
techniques are valued because they have, in one 
way or another, proven themselves effective 
methods for expressing the artist's thoughts.

The real problem with trying to call any piece of 
art "good" or "bad" is the very nature of the 
words "good" and "bad". Like "hot" and "cold", 
they are relative -- and I'm sure everyone has at 
some point experienced being in a room with 
someone else who wants a sweater, while you're 
wishing you'd worn shorts. Which person is right? 
Is the room too hot, or too cold? The answer is 
*neither*. The room is nothing more than itself, 
and the people inside the room are the ones who 
are hot or cold.

I'm not saying all determining of "goodness" or
"badness" of art is opinion. But opinion is a big 
piece of it. A piece of art can be unpopular,
even ugly, and yet be technically well-crafted. 
But is it "good" only because it's well-crafted? 
Or should it be deemed "bad" because no one likes 
it? On the other hand, a piece of art might not 
use any of the accepted techniques for the given 
medium, and yet still successfully complete its 
task.

Yes, *its task*. . . Real art ("good" or "bad") 
has a task -- a job intended for it by the person 
who created it. Maybe it's intended task is to 
create a certain mood. Or to make you think about 
something. Or to express an experience the artist 
had. One way you can judge art is by how 
successfully it conveys what the artist wants to
"say" to the viewer. If the artist is trying to 
express something and the art doesn't express it 
correctly, then you could easily say it's "bad" 
art no matter how well it's crafted.

To give a more concrete example, there are 
various forms of art of which I'm not fond. One 
of those forms is abstract painting. However, I 
did take a class on it, and know a bit more than 
the average person about the techniques used to 
create it. I could look at a piece of abstract 
art and examine it for the presence of those 
techniques. I might even say: "Look here, and 
here. The __________ technique is perfectly 
executed." So I could choose to think the art 
is "good" by that criteria alone, or I could 
choose to think the art is "bad" because it 
doesn't communicate anything to me, personally.

The art is still only itself and nothing more. 
Anything I see or don't see in it is part of my 
opinion -- the influence that my own life 
experiences have on my viewing of the art.

Yann, I think the problem vamppire is having is 
that when you say everyone can recognize "bad" 
anime, the criteria you list aren't quantified. 
Something being a "bad story" is a matter of 
opinion. I might like a story you dislike. If 
you're talking about a badly *written* story, 
even that is open to debate, since you might like 
a writing style that I dislike. So before you can 
be clear to vamppire, you need to define how you 
judge something to be a bad story.

Even "bad animation" isn't as clear cut as it 
might seem on the surface. For example, take the 
animation in the X movie. People seem pretty much 
agreed it is a gorgeous piece of work, where 
animation is concerned. It's generously detailed, 
moves well on the screen (it's technically well 
crafted), and creates the mood necessary for it's 
intended subject matter. But try to put that 
style of art onto something else, and it could 
become a bad thing. . . Imagine that uber-detailed
and dark artwork on, say, the Atashin'chi shorts. 
Or on Tenshi ni Narumon. Or on DiGiCharat. 
Suddenly, although still technically wonderful, 
it's no longer supporting the rest of the piece 
of art -- it has become relatively "bad" just by 
virtue of the mismatch, because this theoretical 
situation assumes nothing else has changed about 
it.

So to judge "good" versus "bad", you have to 
actually concretely decide what you expect of
"good" art. Since I've always viewed art as an 
expression of the artist, I consider art "good" 
if it correctly conveys what the artist intended. 
If people look at the art and no one can see the 
message the artist wanted to express to the 
viewers, then it's "bad" art -- irregardless of 
it's level of technical perfection.

The "rules" for judging art aren't as cut in 
stone as you seem to make them sound. Opinion 
will always be part of judging art. That's the 
reason a panel of judges at the Olympics can each 
give a different score for the same performance. 
Heck, personal opinion is the entire reason there 
*IS* a whole panel of judges whose scores are 
averaged together, instead of just one person 
deciding everything -- the goal being to try to 
eliminate personal opinion from the final score 
given.

Judging art is a even combination of opinion and 
level of technical skill, but I really think it 
leans further towards opinion.

Many Sharp Smiles,
--Drac