OK, I have a simple theory. Never mind its provenance. Let me know what you think. (Illustrations are drawn from the field of Popular Music. Please confine counter-illustrations to this field. Thank you.)
Ahem.
As to Creative Art, there are but two Positive Qualities. The first is Invention: the ability to just Create Shit and Make It Up in a satisfying ("kickass") fashion. The second is Criticism: the ability to justly articulate what's Good and what Sucks.
From this: the most tolerable Art is that which balances Invention and Criticism. (1) That Art what Sucks for lack of criticism is embarrassing pap, either sentimental or a mere parroting of popular trends. (2) That Art what Sucks for lack of Invention only gets listened to by people nobody likes.
Illustration:
(a) Paul McCartney: blessed with Invention, strangely deficient in Criticism
(b) N'Sync: all Criticism, no Invention. (Success achieved solely by clever manipulation of the market)
(c) Horrible band hated by everyone except that one snobby guy: you know, them... All Criticism, No Invention. The Postal Service (gah, barf, die).
My argument is that this crude critical framework (Invention as one axis, Criticism as another) does pretty well at mapping 85% of popular music, at the least.
Am I wrong?