That's International Klein Blue, and sure, seeing it is fun, but the interest of the painting is more on the concept. So he didn't bullshit it, he just didn't let himself be hindered by something that only looked like an inconvenience and used his brains yo overcome it.
12k words on a solid color rectangle with a borderline. Yeah, he put snow in there. There is not a infinite way to describe something. And you can re-describe something a multitude of times, but eventually you're just repeating yourself but using different words. That being said the simpler the item the faster you end up repeating yourself. Now there may be a bit about the artist and the history of the style or what influences might have attributed to the piece but it's still just a solid rectangle with a border. This is type of thing you see in academics when someone has to justify what they're learning or teaching to others solely because it has no other real purpose so they make one up.
The goal is not to describe the picture, but what's behind it. The motivations of the painter, why no one had done it before, why he did it. What the color blue has meant throughout history. Which pigments, what technique have been used to produce International Blue Klein. Which reactions it elicited from the public. Whether it can and should be considered art or not.
Okay, but 12k words? No way. Most of what you just listed could be described in a paragraph per item. If I was a teacher and you did a paper on this and went into detail about how the color is produced I'd fail you. How the color is produced mostly likely has very little to nothing to do with the picture itself. Now, I can see if the paper was titled something along the lines of "(title of the piece): the methodology, production, and inspiration used". Again that's pretty superfluous but I can see that being a much longer paper. Not one I'd want to read, and again just justifying the degree, but I'll grant you it could be long enough.
No offense but that's exactly why you're not a teacher; the process of production of this specific shade is a pretty big deal for this color and is the intellectual property of Klein -no one else can use it, hence the name International Klein Blue. The picture was made to be the rawest example of this color, or more exactly, this pigment. That's a blue square, so the blue used in it is pretty fundamental, your probabilities are screwy when you say that the process of making the color "mostly likely" has nothing to do with it.
Additionnally, this piece -that you can find ridiculous, that's entirely your right- has changed some things in history of art -can one possess an entire color? Can a stupid blue square be considered a painting? Because of this, it's acquired some importance. Because of its monetary value too, let's be honest here. Knowing how it's produced is crucial if/when the piece needs to be restored.
(ok "crucial" is a strong word, obviously that's not gonna cure cancer, but the economics of the art market make it monetarily worth knowing, on top of the intellectual pleasure that is the basis of research)
I only used most likely because I didn't know what inspiration the artist had in making the piece. The production could have been important but in most art the process of making the color has little if nothing to do with why the piece exists. Instead it's the painters preference or needed to achieve a specific outcome.
Additionnally, this piece -that you can find ridiculous, that's entirely your right- has changed some things in history of art -can one possess an entire color? Can a stupid blue square be considered a painting? Because of this, it's acquired some importance. Because of its monetary value too, let's be honest here. Knowing how it's produced is crucial if/when the piece needs to be restored.