When someone is asked to explain what their art is, the questioner either is asking a practical question, or an antagonistic one.

The practical question is “how did you make this?” and perhaps even “what does this mean to you?” a little later.

The antagonistic question is “why do you think I should enjoy this?” or even “why do you think I should consider this to have artistic merit?”

Why must art speak for itself, justify itself? If you don’t like it, don’t worry about it.

There’s bad art, I suppose. Or, is there? Do we mean art which might provoke bad outcomes? Then bad art sits with bad food and bad anything. The thing is only as bad as the outcomes it provokes.

It also seems quite acceptable for art to be a provocation - including a provocation by means of inexplicability.

Sometimes an artist might simply make a thing and consider it pleasing to them alone. I like how it looks.

You don’t have to like everything.