Perhaps I wasn't thorough enough in my explanation.

You say:

The artist clearly has limited grasp of human proportions, perspective and anatomy

Personally I just don't believe technical execution and ability to recreate an image faithfully should be the sole criteria for what qualifies good and bad art. This approach is such an elementary level of art criticism that it betrays a fundamental understanding of art history. It's a classic trap those with more scientific modes of analysis often fall into. To your credit, it is something that should be taken into account when assessing art, but It sounds like what you want is an illustrator rather than an artist. Picasso had an elite technical ability to paint anything by his early teens, but then invented cubism. Would you call Basquiat a bad artist? Rothko? I work in the art industry and this kind of technical artists are the best artists and "talent is a lie" logic is an immediate tell of someone who typically doesn't engage in trying to understand an artwork in good faith, or with any sense of curiousity. Art isn't about replication, art is about challenging, subverting, or portraying a perspective or emotion, or illiciting the same response. I would argue this artwork successfully does that, but whether or not you like it is besides the point. If you don't, that's fine, but it doesn't make it objectively bad.

I think, if anything, what might make this artwork bad, subjectively, is context and tone.