[WenPyclenoWex]

Originally Posted by equanimus The artist's consciousness is only incidental.

(What is consciousness anyway?) That's the equivalence I'm drawing between the unconscious layers in the creative process of bad films and good films

I largely disagree with the claim that his consciousness is incidental.
I agree that sometimes things happen over and above the 'control' the creator claims to possess. But what draws us again to the artists works, what makes us expect his future works, what makes us seek unvisited past treasures all these are largely from what he consciously does. Don't you think so ? I'm not sure if you got what I meant, I am saying that the artist being conscious of something is incidental for the audience. That of course does not automatically mean the merit of the artist's work is itself incidental. Just because the artist is not consciously aware of something, it doesn't make his or her works just arbitrary, surely? As with anyone else, there are inevitably subconscious layers in the artist's mind too, isn't it? (By the way, I should have said "subconscious layers" there, not "unconscious!") It seems to me that you're bordering on drawing a binary distinction between "conscious" and "arbitrary" here, as if to suggest, either the artist has to be consciously aware of what he is doing, or else he is just arbitrarily making something which happens to be a good film.
Of course, it is true (to different degrees) that "all these are largely from what he consciously does." With emphasis on the word 'largely.' It only means that he is only so much consciously aware of what he is doing and might actually not have a very good sense of the magnitude of his work.

How can I be so sure this how he intended I receive the works ? Well I can never be.

Yes, and well, I don't think there's any need to.

In the context of mainstream average films, I can claim with some degree of arrogance, that the intention of the artist is guessable.

Yeah, here, I agree with you. Yes it is easily guessable, but yet we all do see so many other things as well, don't we?

Conceded that a filmmaker can (and will) be worse than he intends to be. Similarly he can better (though less likely) be better than he intends to be.

Good/Bad - subjective, beholder's evaluation of course.

But the question is whether I am applauding for the man who created it or a lucky coincidence he was a part of.

This is where, I think, you're being reductive of the creative process of the Artist. It's not mere lucky coincidence just because he's not consciously aware of all that he has accomplished, the way I see it.