Do you believe that art has to convey a message or a feeling to be considered valuable?

In my opinion, while the conveyance of a message or feeling can undoubtedly enhance the value of a piece of art, it is not an absolute requirement. Art serves multiple purposes: it can provoke thought, inspire, or simply provide aesthetic pleasure. For instance, abstract art often prioritizes emotional resonance over explicit messaging. A viewer may experience joy or unease without understanding the artist's intent. Moreover, the subjective nature of art appreciation means that value can differ significantly among individuals; what resonates with one person may leave another indifferent. Therefore, while conveying a message can elevate a work of art, I contend that art can be equally valuable in its ability to inspire imagination or elicit a visceral reaction, independent of its narrative content.