Not all paintings are intended to have a literal or even metaphorical meaning. Expressionism was one of the first styles to do this. You're not supposed to analyze or figure out deeper explanations of what it's supposed to tell. You're supposed to look at it and immediately feel what the artist wanted to express. It also doesn't have to be a pleasant feeling, just that you can observe something and it making you feel anything is an art form. If you come by something like that in a museum you should give it a little more time and instead of trying to understand what the picture shows, try to observe how it makes you feel when looking at it.

OPs piece is some form of abstract expressionsim. The craftsmanship can be analysed and we could talk about how the pattern is repeating but not perfectly, so it creates a sort of unrest. The blue background stands out from the red, so much that even if the red is smeared heavily on top, it's almost creating an illusion of the blue being on top. This also causes an unrested focus. This might not be pleasant, especially for someone with trypophoiba, but if you were to hang it on a wall, it would probably create a visually attractive vibration. Abstract art can often be used functionally like that to change the feeling of being in a room.

Is it good or is it bad? I don't know.. neither a phone screen or an art museum would be the right way to see this. It should be placed in a room that needs it for it to work best.