/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

Just putting aside joking here, what defines a bad reference to you?
A lot of these are just strange and awkward poses, but those actually strike me as excellent poses that help you better understand how human anatomy works, even more useful when it comes to exceptional human anatomy like Marfan's or Downs' syndromes.
Even certain cloth-based poses like >>5233153 could potentially help with this, though this image is an extreme case.
Some, however, I'm noticing is just distracting and unpleasant to look at. I'd personally consider this a bad reference, >>5217764 solely because I don't like looking at it, but that's a relative thing and as another poster ITT said, can be useful as well.
I suppose the only objectively bad reference is a bad or intentionally overstylized work of art (pic related), and even that is at least somewhat dependent in the artist's intent.
That's this beg's two cents on bad refs, but I'd love to hear yours. Thread's hilarious in any case.