Terms Most Useful In Describing Creative Works Of Art by John Baldessari is exactly what it says it is.

This piece is so straightforward in fact that we can use the terms in the painting to describe the painting itself. It’s tough to say whether John Baldessari was serious when he made this work or just messing with art critics - what with the lifelong battle between artists and critics and everything. In all likelihood it’s the latter, but we think it’s OK for critics to get a taste of their own medicine every once in a while. Baldessari certainly thought so and didn’t hold back.

Baldessari’s Terms Most Useful In Describing Creative Works Of Art  “gives vision” and “flavor” to art criticism criticism. Does he do this by ridiculing critics? Maybe. Is it still “enlighten[ing]”? Yes. This painting is “out of the ordinary” and “challenges” the entire profession and livelihood of people like Jerry Saltz, Peter Schjeldahl and Holland Cotter (all critics, obviously). Baldessari implies that it is hard to “take seriously” anything that certain writers say about him, especially Jerry Saltz who said, “Baldessari’s art was never as unnerving or revealing of secret psychic structures as Nauman’s. Nor was he as intelligent or as visually original as Ruscha, as darkly poetic as Acconci, or as relentless as Serra.” If anything these comments give Baldessari a “motivation” to “communicate” how stupid he thinks critics are in hopes that his ideas will “transfer” to art lovers everywhere. All in all, this work is just a tongue-in-cheek way of flipping art criticism on its head in an attempt to make people lol.