A Response to Denise: What good is bad art?

In her blog Denise asked: What do we lose by avoiding the experience of "bad" art?

Superficially, I think most people would say that we lose nothing by avoiding art that is deemed "bad" by critics and others whose opinion they respect. If someone who is in a superior position who is deemed "good enough" or more intelligent to judge films, books, television, art pieces, etc says that certain art is not good enough or bad then we believe them and do not waste our time with that art. I think this, however, has major downfalls. When critics judge a piece of work they judge it for the masses and judge it on points that the masses and general public will like or dislike. I do not think they take enough time thinking of the little points and eccentricities of the work that will mean something deeply to a person or a group of people. When we look at a piece of work there are major things that appeal to all of us like the flow of the plot or the characters or how vibrant the colors are or how detailed and intricate the sculpture is but small details always mean something different to all of us. Like we talked about in class, the only way to experience a piece of art the same way as someone else is to be that person. We all lead different lives and watch the world through different eyes. So when someone watches a "bad" movie or looks at a "bad" piece of art and sees something beautiful, are they wrong? What if a small piece of it resonates with them? When we avoid supposedly bad art, we also avoid an artists vision and voice and what he wanted to convey. And what this message is might be something that could save someone. So what are we doing, judging art is an impossible thing, so what do we think we will gain from it?