Value is perceived by those who consume it. Gold is a pretty useless metal, yet people flock to buy it. Same thing with most luxury goods. I personally really don't understand why people would pay for orchestra or dance (I don't like em), but that doesn't affect the value of it.
But if we're talking about that specific painting, I actually kinda like it haha.
I'd actually argue that the painting displays plenty of technical talent. The biggest thing that stands out to me is obviously the color palette. At first glance, the painting looks chaotic and confusing. But from the colors, we can tell that the artist that made it has expert knowledge of color theory and value. Next, the technique used to paint shows that the artist knows how to use a palette knife pretty damn well lol. Even the arrangement of color shows that plenty thought went into making the painting.
And it's not like art's ever had clean-cut meanings and interpretations. Take this painting for example:
Just looks like a loving couple reuniting after war, right? In actuality, the entire painting is a metaphor for 'peace.' The woman, Aphrodite, is distracting her lover, Aries, from continuing the war he's started. As he's distracted, she and the Cupid (not a Cupid but can't remember the actual name) start to disarm him by removing his weaponry and armor. In all, "love" triumphs "war."
Personally, I feel like both paintings are just as vague with their explanations. It takes prior knowledge of art history, symbolism, and mythology to actually understand the above painting, just like it takes prior knowledge of abstraction to understand Riopelle's work. Honestly, if you look at either painting without that knowledge they both look kinda crappy lol
Overall, if it isn't your description of art, that's fine. Part of doing art is figuring out how you personally interpret it.