Since "art is about art" came from me: I see nothing unsubstantial in that very expression. Art is expression, art is play, but most importantly, art is free. I don't see why anybody has to be ostracized for not finding access to it, but ironically you're making the case for the opposing claim: nobody here judged people for not "getting it", yet you're insinuating various things about the group that "claims to get it".

Why bother making it about identity and individual attributes? I find that exhausting. I'm blown away by Picassos work, because I find true beauty in his way of abstracting. He very clearly saw the world from a special point of view, which he translated in a way that language is not meant to convey. I can't claim to truly see what he saw just by looking at his work, but I'm seeing something, and I couldn't care less wether you find this to be an unsubstantial claim, because I don't have to make everything in life about groups and identity, peer confirmation, etc etc.

Some well meant food for thought: not all data has to fit your model of the world. Usually when this happens, it's not a data-problem. Now you can say "well people who claim they see value in abstract art are noise to me", and that's ok, it's your model - but I found it to be a far better strategy in life to keep my mind open instead of being reactionary when confronted with something that doesn't please me. Cheers!