Interesting interview with David Mirvish in the week-end Globe and Mail. He specifically talks about colour-field paintings, and how difficult it is to appreciate them unless you seem them full size as they are meant to be appreciated.
And yet we're still discussing the painting, with implicit and explicit judgments being bandied about re: what constitutes art, what constitutes art worth buying, at what price should art (of this sort or any other) be purchased, as well as public funding for culture at a national level.
Above and beyond the artist's intentions to explore conceptual ideas through the non-mimetic formal qualities of art, I would say this painting has done a wonderful job - at the conceptual level - of exploring art philosophically.
If these sorts of questions stir your juices, I'd suggest reading Arthur Danto's The Abuse of Beauty. He's an emeritus professor of philosophy at Columbia and considered one the great art theorist of the our time. The book essentially explores art's shift from representations of beauty (profane and divine) to abstract formalism to manifestations of the conceptual, in an overarching exploration of what constitutes "art" and what grand definition of art can satisfactorily encompass and explain all of the shifting preoccupations among various movements and individual artists.
Spoiler: Hegel was right all along. (He always is).