But UX does not matter when experiencing art. OP is entitled to feel nit picky and pissy and a critic because of the normal way they experience the web. It does not mean his critique matters.
UX may not matter to you when experiencing art, but it certainly matters to me when experiencing art. A lack of care for whether or not the art is actually accessible to its audience makes it indistinguishable from the pretentious “avant garde” slop that exists primarily to allow “art dealers” to launder money.
Even worse, this website is less analogous to the art itself and more analogous to an art gallery, which means that now my perception of the art being showcased is now unfairly negative through no fault of the actual art on display. If I'm trying to view some painting at the Louvre only for the curator to jump in front of me and say “Wait! Do you really want to view that painting or do you want a notecard saying where it is?”, damn straight am I going to be annoyed as all hell at such antics, and it's going to ruin my experience through no fault of the actual artist.
... UX is the only thing that matters when experiencing art.
More to the point, though, in this case the art is purporting to be a functional website, so we're absolutely allowed to critique it on the grounds of being bad at that.
But UX does not matter when experiencing art. OP is entitled to feel nit picky and pissy and a critic because of the normal way they experience the web. It does not mean his critique matters.