No. And to prove it, here's my ascii picture of a car: __ _/ o\_ =O----O} That aside, I don't know exactly what you have in mind. Is it that maybe the term "art" already excludes what someone might have wanted to call "bad art"---so that "good art" is redundant? If that's the question, I suppose I think sometimes the term "art" is used like that. If we say "a guitar made by Fred is a work of art", we're probably not using "art" in a way in which it makes sense to add, "and a very bad work of art at that." But in plenty of other cases, we don't use "art" so that "bad art" makes no sense. A rather different issue concerns the objectivity of evaluations of artworks. If I say "that drawing is really bad", does the word "bad" denote, once and for all, an objective category of artworks, so that my statement is true or false depending on whether the drawing falls in that category? Or does my statement do only a more subjective job, perhaps of expressing my ...

A perfect copy? Wow! That would be an incredible technical achievement, requiring immensely precise matches of material composition and construction. The product of such a vast and unprecedented undertaking (were it feasible) would probably merit a price higher than any original artwork. But suppose, as you might have intended, that such a process became commonplace and inexpensive: Titians for the masses. Then of course the original would fetch a premium over the copies. Why? Because we value artworks not only for their intrinsic features--their look, their material constitution--but for their historical features, for their being the very objects on which the artist exercised their craft. This is why prints tend to be less valuable than paintings by the same artist---they're just a bit towards the replica side of things. Does this make sense, or is it as pointless a fetish as ... saving one of Britney's cigarette butts? I don't know. But it's not only artworks that normally...