I know a lot of people already wrote about this, but it was something that bothered me too. (I thought of my question and then saw everyone else’s and decided I’m going to write it anyway.) The author focuses so much on “bad art”. “Bad” is a very general term. What does he mean by “bad” and bad according to whose opinion? Why, according to him, is the art “bad”? Also, he says “bad is good” and “more bad is better” which kind of gives a mixed message. If the bad is good then why does he seem so upset about it?