I think this is a wrong interpretation. If you think about it, the we convey meaning is through "compressing" the meaning as light and sound in a way that once

I think this is a wrong interpretation. If you think about it, the we convey meaning is through "compressing" the meaning as light and sound in a way that once received it will trigger meaning in similar to us organisms. Essentially, for us to transfer knowledge, the receiver end also needs to be trained to decode it and that's why it's impossible to have meaning transfer to a party that is not ready to understand it. Math equations mean nothing to a person not literate in math and a relationship advice means nothing to a person who never had one(can be capable to misinterpret it though) but also depend on who said it in what context. Your mother saying "I love you" is completely different from your SO saying "I love you", despite having the exact same structure no matter if its transferred through sound, ink, electronic display or braille. This means, the light patterns that we call image mean completely different things depending on who created them. The art critics or curators don't simply look at the image and understand something from it, they know the artist they know the trends they know the word on the street and they try to understand how the artwork fits in all this. The same straight line image made by Picasso, made by Dali, made by a toddler and made by AI would have completely different meaning and value. Most tech nerds have no decoders to decode artistic meaning and as a result they will look down on not only critics but also artists. Sometimes meaning can be conveyed by analogies but for that the artistic counterpart needs to special effort.