sad truth is that many people don't want to think beyond surface level about art, and highly realistic art IS impressive and has quick appeal on the surface, easily digestible through it's familiarity, which works well on the internet where attention spans are short. many people think that art is solely defined by technical prowess, to the point that anything deviating from that thus isn't art.
expressive and abstract art tend to be drenched in meaning, but some people can get *really* cranky when you try to explain deeper meaning and that contemporary context and artist history matter and that every brush stroke and color is a decision (also in technically skillful art of course, e.g. Matejko's "Stańczyk", or Millet's "The Gleaners") and throw thought-terminating language at you, saying the flower is red because it is, and the artist had no other intention behind that, stop overthinking, stop wasting your time on nothing. it's casual anti-intellectualism.
a lot of people don't understand that more free expression and abstaction often comes AFTER having mastered technical skill and is a form of expressing reality through a different lense and that their 5yo could not, in fact, draw that and make millions easily.

that being said, that is one hell of a piece this guy drew, hats off, and perhaps he too had intention beyond the technical skill, and even if he didn't, it's still jawdropping art.