Can art be good or bad and still be art?

I've been reading a few discussions and essays lately on the subject of art (as it relates to textile/fabric art, but the theory is more general).

Some people believe that art must be consciously made to be art. That is, you couldn't start out thinking "Oh this is pretty or striking fabric, I think I'll make a cushion" and call the finished product art. I am not decrying lovely or interesting cushions. They can be functional, decorative or fun or any combination. If you are already producing a lot of work (maybe art), your cushion may be a development of your work, or may embody your artistic voice by default. If you become famous and collectable, it may even have value over and above the obvious one, like a scribble on a napkin by Andy Warhol or Picasso, for example.

There seem to be extremes in this argument for consciousness. At one end you could have someone with a vision that was informing and guiding their process in a work - they could be imagining all kinds of emotions, events, or times, for example slavery in the cotton belt, and translate it into a blank blue canvas with 5 white spots. Any viewer without an artist statement to read would be hard pressed to detect the message the artist intended. They may or may not like the placement of the spots, and the background colour. Is it art?

Well, it could be, but not just because the artist had had a vision before they started work. It is unlikely to be art if the artist has not developed a series of work ( or is going to) exploring a theme. There would have to be something particular to the artist about the colour, brush strokes, size, placement of spots, etc. Otherwise it could just be a class exercise - paint a blue background and add 5 white spots. Not art.

Conversely, at the other end, you have artists who work intuitively. They might start with an image, shape or fragment, and build on it, letting their subconscious guide the development. When they start they have no idea where the piece is going, and can probably only entitle it when it feels complete. I don't mean in a facile way "Oh this looks like a chicken laying an egg", but they will make conscious some of the subconscious ideas that led the development. Again, may or may not be art. It could just be a technique sample to be filed for future use. However, after a period of development, this sample could then find that it is a piece of art after all.

Artist passion is not a guarantee of great art, or even art at all. Having said that, few people would ever set out to make bad art on purpose. Even knowing that you have to have a crap quota to work through, you would not churn out bad stuff just to get through the quota!

I support all the proponents of the "Do the work" school. An 8 year old might write an appealing poem in grade school, lauded by teacher and parents. However, they are unlikely to make a living from published poetry until they have written a huge amount of variable quality. Similarly, novice fabric artists might make some appealing works, but are unlikely to be selling stuff or winning prizes until they have made a considerable amount.

Of course, production of art is not necessarily going to lead to fame and fortune, but luckily we are not usually motivated by anything other than the desire to make art. We might be satisfied or dissatisfied with any individual work, but we know we have learnt something about technique, composition and ourselves during the making. It is never a waste.