I think I've seen discussions about this before, and obviously the USSR produced art because we still see statues of Lenin today. But how does this translate in modern times with the instance of obscure art or other modern art? Often the purpose of that art is to explicitly go against societal norms for aesthetics.
Use value is whatever the purchaser gets out of the commodity when they use it. Including looking at a painting they bought. Use value is therefore not restricted to purely utilitarian commodities. It even includes services, non-tangible commodities, etc.
Capitalism is about social relations to production. Art as a commodity is produced for sale. If you're employed by someone to make the art, they provide the supplies and keep the profits from sale, then you are a worker whose job is making art. Proletarian. If you buy your own supplies and do your own selling, you are petite bourgeois like any other owner proprietor. If you employ others to mske the art, e.g. a bunch of prints, you are moving towards a higher rung of bourgeois, moving from petite to just plain bourgeois. In all of these scenarios it does not matter whether the art is "subversive" or challenging, only your relation to its production as a commodity for sale.