Policy check: Art that looks mediocre when zoomed in

I've had a question about this type of artwork quality for a while now; in a nutshell, I'm talking about art that makes you go:

"Oh this looks awesome!"
*click to view full sized version*
"Oh god... orz"

Posts like

post #996972
post #996186
post #994672

Sorry about the fact that they are all my own uploads, but they just happen to be the ones most accessible to me. When we encounter art like this, is there some sort of general guideline that we can follow to determine whether or not we should upload the piece or let it sit in pixiv because its picture quality at full resolution is not very impressive?

(Although to be fair, they all have better art quality than karaagetarou's chibis... Not that the poorly/uniquely drawn figures prevented any comics of his from being approved.)

P.S. What determines acceptable bad_proportions? I assumed that we were not allowed to upload any image with bad proportions, but new images under that tag continue to pop up (and are sometimes approved through mod queue rather than uploaded by contributors).

Quality in it's original intended resolution is most important. If it looks bad enough up close, then they should probably not be considered for uploading here.

About Karaagetarou... His art style is liked because they are consistent and solid. His comics are intricate and the story is very good, too.

The Danbooru hive mind, of which I am but a tiny part, might need to be reminded: Art that was done in a loose, rough or harsh style is not necessarily bad. More polished art is not necessarily better art.

The heavy brush strokes of post #994672 are a valid stylistic option. The soft, patterned coloring of post #996186 is another one. (There seems to be some JPEG noise, though.) And the sharp-edged fields of color and dissolved pencil lines of post #996972 are yet another.

Visible traces of the techniques used to create a picture often contribute to the expression of the artist's personal view of the subject matter. Sometimes they just look cool. Please don't think of them them as nothing but faults to be smoothed over.

I'd tend to think it's a lesser problem if the image has no real details to make you want to view it in full size, and so can be considered unnecessary large.
I don't think this principle can save an image that looks plain bad in full size, but I posted post #970643 despite the artifacts because of it, considering the image at full size was borderline.

Flopsy said:
Visible traces of the techniques used to create a picture often contribute to the expression of the artist's personal view of the subject matter.

Sometimes it's that, sometimes it's just poorly drawn.

And I fail at clicking Edit.

Might Claude Monet be relevant to this discussion?