I really abhor statements like "X is objectively bad", especially when referring to art and literature. It paints this narrative of art being something that only the elite can appreciate and therefore replicate - It's an incredibly arrogant, elitist way of thinking that dictates, unfairly, that art has to be held to an objective standard - a standard defined by a very small, elite and yet completely arbitrary group of people. By proxy, art can only truly belong to these people. If you're an amateur, a hobbyist or not educated, then get the fuck out. You can't do art like we do.

I totally subscribe to your point of view here, but actually disagree with the idea that art can't be objectively bad. The fact is art can be objectively good. The all time greats pieces of an artform are great in an objective sense. You can't say that Well's Citizen Kane isn't a good film, or that Van Gogh's Starry Night isn't a good painting. Somethings are good, perfect in their execution, innovation and influence. That doesn't mean every person should have to like these things, but when there is a consensus across the board of all the experts in a field that a work is good, it's objectively good.

If we accept that to be true, the inverse must also be true. Art must be able to be objectively bad. In fact it's likely true that there are likely far more pieces of objectively bad art than objectively good art. It just has a way of not making it into the public consciousness. Think of all those shitty "I'm a professional photographer" you'll find on Facebook and Craigslist. A lot of them are people who bought a camera and thinks that makes them a brilliant artist, and all their work is terrible.

I will say that a majority of the time that people claim something is objectively X, they are greatly exaggerating the merits or faults of the work. But the extremes absolutly exist.