I would like to know how people are judging these painting. I have no knowledge or understanding of abstract paintings. To me the only criteria seems to be does it look "organic", but organic to me is just "not completely random".
As Marshall McLuhan said: "Art is anything you can get away with." (and Andy Warhol later quoted him).
Art is cultural phenomenon and modern art is even more so. You have to study painting and modern art to be able to judge it in context.
In the quality of modern painting is almost completely path dependent and not absolute in any way. Some of those cheap decorative paintings you see on hotel wall would have been masterpiece for artist who sees the style first time in 1920's. Today art critic would not look twice at them because they are just lazily copying style.
Modern art scene is just like any scene. Just because it's usually done by adults and rich people are attracted to it does not mean it's any more or less valuable, or more or less sophisticated than some other scene.
The novelty factor (1920 style looks cheap now because it is copied) is the gamication engine of this scene.
You have to be told this is good by an accepted thought leader who was accepted by previously thought leaders. Meanwhile everyone stands around and pretends to say something but are really trying to copy others.
