Her aim was to create a painting that emphasized its frontal plane in a way that would echo the wall behind it, suggesting the architectural character of the painting's shape. Where in the original text is the writer claiming to know or represent what the artist thinks? The quote above is the closest I can find. Granted, it might be safer for the writer to say "Here she created a painting that emphasized..." (or what have you) rather than claim it as the artist's aim. But this could be a valid statement, taken from something the artist herself has said, written, or otherwise expressed (perhaps in an interview). Artists are often asked that question and they often answer it. Myself, I don't know. I'm not familiar with the artist. And if this were an academic paper, or part of a longer feature, I'd expect both expansion and the support of reference notation (referencing an interview, for example.) But the claims are benign, even conservative, and if I understand the OP, this is just a panel of text appearing near the painting--a blurb for context. I don't see (or sense) pretension in it. Everyone has their own bullshit detector, though, and it's wise to listen when it rings.