I don't find the Miró picture displeasing. It's actually somewhat interesting. I'd put that heads and tails above, say,
this, or
this. Unfortunately, all of Miró's stuff probaby looks exactly like that with only slight differences, and that's an immediate sign that he/she is a talentless idiot. Anybody can draw the same shapes and designs over and over, and anybody can fling paint at a canvas. I'd say Thomas Kinkade is a billion times more useful than either of the people that painted the two things I linked to (just a random image search, I know nothing about them -- this is snap judgment time), and while I can't say he's more talented because I have no idea if those people actually have talent outside those pieces of worthless crap they painted, if that's all they can do, in my opinion they aren't artists.
I don't mind weird, and I don't mind something well beyond the scope of realism, but don't try to tell me that completely arbitrary stuff has some great meaning to it. It doesn't; unless you feel like making it up as you go along afterward.
EDIT - See, I don't mind Kandinsky. Not at all to my
taste, but at least I can see what he was trying to do at times, and the whole ends up looking interesting. Highly, highly overrated, sure, but pretty much all that stuff is. Picasso I tend to enjoy, though again, it's not something I would ever hang on my wall. It's nothing I consider
attractive, though it is
interesting. I feel much the same about van Gogh.