Meaning that the author is maybe not very good at their craft, but inadvertently created a work with a lot more meaning than they intended, or they accidentally did something quite clever that they didn’t mean to. Or maybe a work which is good in its own right but there’s a particular “unofficial” interpretation which makes it so much better.
Obviously a bit of this question involves knowing authorial intentions, but in a lot of instances authors have been able to state that they did or didn’t intend a particular interpretation.
The amount of info I was able to put into this one image is borderline art IMO.
That is a 3 layer circuit board. If you looked at the full repo you would find how this evolved from low quality phone images into something more with time. I had the whole thing mapped out for connections based on continuity between vias but then was given some xrays and managed to map out every internal connection even though the xrays were not of a fully stripped and blank PCB. I even managed to figure out the way the central layer’s ground plane is routed between the various traces. I made and added the Inkscape vector of the microcontroller with all the pins mapped, every part number for components and it all goes with my unique style of naming and layout in KiCAD schematics. I strongly believe that every connection on a schematic should be fully descriptive without requiring cross referencing. The colors, varied transparency, and subtle ways that I added more and more information the deeper you zoom in is art and the kind of thing that could be implemented directly in something like KiCAD. I did all of the tracing in GIMP layers.
Probably not exactly what you were asking, but I still find it artful 5 years later which is not something I normally say for things I have worked on. It came together in a totally unintended way after I was only looking for the easiest way to add the USB port of the chip to the built in connector which turned out impractical.