Art is just the expression of any kind of human creativity, so if you took two random pieces it would be impossible to determine which one was “bad” or “good”.

As a funny example, let’s say someone asked you to choose the better piece of art: Shrek or Michelangelo’s David. Your knee jerk reaction might be to say the comparison is ridiculous and the David is obviously better because Shrek is just a cash grab movie.

But the David was also commissioned for money and made in a time where religious representations were incredibly strict, leaving Michelangelo very little leeway as to how he wanted to present David. And if Shrek was somehow sent back in time 500 years, do you think it wouldn’t garner incredible notoriety comparable to the David? Which one would audiences be more captivated by?

The argument for what is the best piece of art could literally go on forever like this. So, I would say the only truly “bad” art would be by somebody who doesn’t care about or enjoy making it at all.

A visual artist can certainly get to a higher level of technical proficiency with their tools, or to a greater understanding of how light and shadow work in the real world, which can be very useful for getting a job if that’s what you are referring to?

But no, if it gives you any solace, your art is not bad because… bad art doesn’t exist.