this is all very subjective of course, as all art criticism is. there's nothing wrong with making pretty art. and it's very salable. but it's also often rather boring. pretty art gets hung in hotels and ignored. interesting art gets looked at and talked about. sometimes something is both pretty and interesting. but if the only thing i can say about art is 'pretty,' if i don't engage with it enough to notice textures or shapes or colours, or interesting use of materials etc., then that's meaningful too. to me, the only thing worse than art that only sparks the thought of 'pretty' is art that doesn't spark any thought at all.