meh.

Art falls into four categories, although the placement of any piece of art into a particular category is subjective. Art that is simply enjoyable to look at, art that is saying something, art that is both visually enjoyable and saying something, and art that doesn't make you think and it isn't nice to look at it. The last category is art that doesn't work for you, and if it tends to be that way for most people can be called bad art. Your issue seems to be that this art doesn't make you think or have much of a message, which is a reasonable objection. But a lot of older art also falls into that category. That well painted masterpiece of a bunch of fruit or flowers is really hard to find a deep message in too. But some people like it. And which art provokes thought in a person and moves them in some way is really going to vary from person to person. Maybe somebody is deeply moved by a painting of some flowers that to me feels more like a simple demonstration of one's ability to handle the technical aspects of painting while not actually using it to make something meaningful. Maybe somebody sees something about the passing nature of beauty or whatnot, and if so, then it's a better piece of art to them than it is to me, which is fine. Maybe some people are moved by these examples that feel vapid to you, because it resonates with them and makes them feel and think about things. But even if not, I think there is a place for art that is merely visually interesting or fun. Although I do prefer art that manages to both really connect with me on some sort of meaningful level and also be beautiful. But such art is much rarer in my experience than art that primarily does only one or the other. But, at least, this is a nice change from people being upset with art that merely is meant to make people think and is not especially pretty, since such art does get bashed a lot.