Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know, it's art even if it has no ambitions to be exhibited at the MoMA. > It's a computer wallpaper that monopolistic megacorp funded to show off how wealthy it is. Groan. It's not possible to have a serious discussions with someone starting from such a cynical position. After all, what is even the point of creating anything? We're all going to turn to dust and be forgotten forevermore.
The point is it's poorly done by the standard you'd expect from top level no-expense-spared commercial graphic design. And that reflects poorly on the company and the product. The Win XP field was the opposite. It was organic, calming, and oddly fascinating because you couldn't tell if it was a plain photo or an edit or... what. And it had an unexpected reference to the Windows branding in the composition. Win 10 was…
Like it or not, art exists in a vacuum. It does not need to justify its existence. That's the very definition of art.