I think you're perhaps confusing description for content.

If you don't see how any works of art are interesting without having them described to you by the artist or a curator, then that does not mean the artist or curator should describe it to you. That is a You Problem.

Now, if the artist were in a school or competition, where they have to describe art in order to complete some sort of goal like a qualification or to win a prize, then there is an expectation to describe it.

But that isn't related to the content of the art. The content is still there regardless of the description or criticism.

I guess earlier you weren't trying to moralise about art and gatekeep art, and were just wanting to express an opinion you have about what you'd like from artists, however the way you expressed your opinion was definitely moralising, demanding, and inferred that any opinion other than yours isn't valid. So I guess that's why you have been heavily criticised by art community over it.

However, property taxes discourage construction of new homes, and maintenance and repair of homes, because these taxes increase when landowners develop and improve their property, and annual property taxes are passed onto renters as they roughly scale up with occupancy.

A fairer alternative is land value tax, a.k.a. "the perfect tax". The tax is levied based on the potential value of the land to its owner, which creates the opposite incentives. Landowners use land as a speculative asset less due to the cost of LVT, and benefit from developing land in order to realise higher incomes against the cost of LVT. Also, the cost of the tax is not passed on to tenants.

Essentially, property taxes are regressive and create deadweight loss, while land value taxes are progressive and economically efficient.