Nah it sucks

This is the red canvas incident all over again - if you have to explain why a seemingly boring painting is good, then it's actually not good

To be fair, I've seen some pretty good stock prints in waiting rooms.

True. For example, the context of modern found artists being in an art world that embraces them makes their work seem as derivative as a still life.

I've seen mass manufactured art in sale in Walmart that is better than blue triangle

Let me think about it and then reiterate it so you will finally admit I'm right

Arbitrary standards of art are whack.

But if the point of the piece is to show what just anyone could potentially do then the painting would have to be able to stand on its own without context because if it were in fact a painting by Joe Sixpack who didn't have any of that context behind it then the only thing there to be interpreted would be its visual appeal. So if the visual appeal amounts solely to "kinda neat" then the painting still only amounts to "kinda neat" but even worse because it fails to showcase what it's trying to showcase.

It's not that arbitrary.

In terms of painting, it's visual the same way music is audio. You shouldn't need an explanation for why a song is good to like it. Either it sounds good or it doesn't. Same way you shouldn't need an explanation for why a painting is actually brilliant.

It's a visual medium. If the visual doesn't capture it then the painting failed do what it's supposed to.

Yeah but that's actually really neat. The textures and colors look twisted, violent, and unsettling.