Good and bad art - who decides?

Another meeting of the Spacex Review Group has left me pondering my approach to critical writing. Do I have to make a value judgement about every piece of work I see, or is it enough to analyse the work's form, effect and meaning? Does an unwillingness to find fault indicate a spineless lack of critical position or an open-mindedness appropriate to the diversity and sheer slipperiness of contemporary art? 

One member of the group described an exercise she was set during a school gallery visit where she was required to spend 20 minutes sitting in front of the piece of art she hated most. Of course, after 20 minutes she felt completely differently about it.

This is often my experience of visiting a show: the work I struggle hardest with can ultimately be the most rewarding. So, any judgement of its value it would depend very much on how long I spent with the work and when I decided to commit my thoughts to paper.  And speaking of value - value to whom exactly?

What criteria do we use to decide if something is good or bad? We could judge work against the artist's or curator's intent (if we know it), but creative people are usually open to the possibility that, by setting out to do one thing, they may well end up doing something else that's richer or more interesting.

In an overcrowded art market, we do need quality control. Artists need feedback that tells them what is and isn't working. We also need critics who are prepared to burst the self-important bubbles of artists, curators and collectors who have lost their way. An art world in which everyone just walked around congratulating each other would be truly stagnant.

The real question for me when looking at art isn't "Is it good or bad?" but "Is it interesting?" I have lots more thinking to do on this subject, but I really do believe that my first duty when writing about art and artists is to try to understand.

www.spacex.co.uk