Thanks for taking the time to express your reasoning without being pointlessly sassy with me. It really sucks that just because I'm trying to express a sliver of devil's advocacy here, I get people dogpiling on me and imagining me to be something I'm not. Frustrating and disappointing. Anyways I really appreciate your comment in light of all that.

I am an artist myself, I spend a ton of time making art and thinking about how to make more successful art, analyzing art, philosophizing about art, etc. Please believe me when I say that I understand the approach you describe as a value of art and a way of valuing art. I definitely think that one of the great joys of art is in thinking about the human reasoning behind it. I have cried tears of joy from doing theoretical analysis of baroque music, because I felt as if the composer was alive again by my side, so much did I understand the thought process behind the composition.

That said, I don't think the approach you describe is the only way to value art, and I think we do art a great disservice to treat that as the only way. I believe in "the death of the author" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author), and I believe that a work can have an intrinsic meaning that is possibly entirely different from the author's intent. The essence of a work is the work itself. For example, imagine if you learned that The Bee Movie was intended to be a heart-wrenching metaphor for drug addiction. Would you now think that this is indeed what the movie is about? Or would you think "the movie is what it is, it means what its always meant, and the creator just failed to create what they intended"?

It can be fun to connect with the artist and look for meaning in their work through the lens of the artist, but the work has an intrinsic meaning in itself. Let me ask you this one question:

You've likely heard of the famous "shortest story" that goes like this: "For sale: Baby shoes, never worn." Let us suppose that the author of this story had never written it. Instead, I've created a machine that randomly selects 6 words and punctuation written on pieces of paper from a jar, and lays them out to form gimmicky short 6-word stories. Most of these stories are gibberish nonsense, but eventually the machine just so happens to lay out exactly the text of that baby shoes story. In this case, does the story somehow no longer have meaning to you? To me, it seems as though the story must have the same meaning. The entire content of the work is the same. And to me this demonstrates that it is the work itself which gives the work meaning, not the intent of its creator.