How does one defiine good/bad taste in art, if at all?

[Kman]

I'd still say that art needs to have objective value. By the following definition:

All I consider art to be is something that makes the person experiencing it feel some sort of emotion that was made with a creative intent

I would find a lot of things to be art that other people wouldn't consider so, such as my stories about ALIAS and his homosexual tendenceis.

Yeah I'd consider those stories to be art too, they were made with a specific idea that you were trying to execute in mind and in some way or another have an emotional impact on the reader, whether that's disgust or humorous or confusion. You just mold that basic definition to what your criteria for a good work of art is and there you have your standard for what's good and bad art. But the key term there is your definition of good art, just because it's your definition doesn't mean it applies to everyone. Maybe someone thinks that what makes a great classical piece is cacophonous nonsense, by your definition that's terrible art, but if that's what appeals to them and that's how they judge that certain type of art, who are you to tell them they're wrong just because your criteria is different?