I believe that art follows a certain kind of criteria in order for something to be considered "art" or "artistic". First, I believe art has some kind of intention. This may be hard to distinguish because "happy accidents" are known to happen more often than not, but I also believe that a piece cannot have absolutely NO intention. Another criterion for "what is art" is response. Every art piece creates a response from the audience. There is a wide range of emotional connections a viewer could experience with a piece of artwork... whether someone finds a piece "fascinating" or "boring", a spectrum of response is essentially inevitable... that is, if you are human and have emotions ;-]. There are of course other criterion, but I believe a piece of art should fulfill at least one. I wouldn't exactly define art because of any kind of art form could break the conventions of what could typically be "defined" as art. Defining, in my opinion, would be restricting to what could be seen as art.
Determining what is bad or good art sort of comes cliche to me because I think it is all up to the artist and/or viewer... like "in the eyes of the beholder" crap. If the artist has confidence in his/her piece although it may not be aesthetically pleasing to anyone else, than yes, I believe that to be good art. Any kind of astounding, thought-provoking pieces can also be categorized as good art. No matter how simplistic or intricate pieces are, it would be very hard for something to be considered bad art. Don't get me wrong, bad art does happen.
