First and foremost, it's not good, nor is it genuine.
But it is genuine imitation.
Yes, real genuine imitation and that fools the untrained and inexperienced.
Very often the best airport art has materials comparable with what it copys.
Sometimes the designs can even appear similar, however on closer inspection,
technical differences, as well as inferior design articulation are invariably revealed.
Airport art has no importance, nor did it in the past nor will it in the future.
It has no viable iconography, though it appears to.
We do grant identifying these subtleties requires concentration and hands on experience but,
in the final analysis, it is what separates
cultural heritage from that's right you guessed it--
fyi: the montage made from an archetype period "Crivelli/cum/Holbein" pile rug fragment is not airport-art