Evaluating Art - the "good" art debate

On of the most common complaints that I hear about art - both from
other artists and the public at large - is how someone can distinguish
good from bad (or even less-good) art. Interestingly, this seems to
be a bit of a common ground between the public and artists. Something
along the lines of "how can you possibly evaluate someone's personal
expression (or genius)?" I believe that you can.

First, not all art is destined for great things. In fact, some isn't
even supposed to be. Like any employ, there are times when the artist
is simply honing their craft or making some brief observation to be
fully fleshed out at a later date. Just as a coffee-house debate,
though informative and often insightful, is not in the same league as
a fully realized presidential or prime ministerial address; these
experiments may lead to but are not yet great works or art. By
design.

Next, assuming the work doesn't fit into the aforementionned mold, how
to evaluate? And to this end I believe there are two primary
criteria. Does it have something interesting to say (and does it say
it)? Does it work from a technical point of view (and does it's form
support its message)? I believe that the strongest works satisfy both
of these criteria with resounding yesses. Certainly, there are some
works that are primarily in one of the two domains (protest art -
strong on message; formalist work - strong on the technicals) and that
may yet be successful, but that their lasting power is dependent on
their ability to push the envelope (protest art that is somehow
formally innovative - huge scale, for example; formalist work that
reinvents in its medium - does something fresh and exciting).

Tomorrow, I'll put the criteria to work with three strong and three
weak examples.

Bye for now!