[ImprobableTruth]

Commercially successful art is that which is "popular enough". The value of art is completely subjective, so what other measure do we have?

If there's "bad art" that appeals to you and others enough, then it isn't bad art. There's lots of art that critics and the general public would consider poorly made that is still commercially successful because it has its fans.

"Real" bad art is art that almost no one cares for enough to shell out money. Why should we subsidize that? Just writing this off as philistinism isn't convincing in the least.