Art has to have a message. For example take photography. Now, everyone can take a photo of something. We can't call them art. They need to have a message to be called art. If I press piano buttons randomly, I make a noise, not an art. If I draw an apple, without adding something to it, it doesn't matter how realistic it is, it's just a drawing, not an art. Anyone with a phone, can get more realistic apple with just one touch. Art is something invisible. Something that you can't touch. And art has to have a message to be called art
According to my point of view art doesn't need to have a meaning , art is something that should be felt , its like a music , even a music without lyrics does not have meanings , and we love those instrumental composition even without lyrics . Thus art is also the same it does not need to have meanings but should have composition sense and color sense to make it more appealing.
Art does not always need to have some sort of message to become something bigger than it seems. It can choose to be only visually appealing to be an amazing piece of work. Sure it can show the emotions and the effort that an artist is trying to express but that is not the only way to having meaning behind it.
Art does not have to have a message. It can be enjoyed simply for its aesthetic beauty. Sometimes we don't want to think, we just want to look and that is okay. Think about a landscape or the awe of the sunset, they are aesthetically beautifully and sometimes we want to enjoy something like that just because.