Does Art Need Meaning?

I felt a little lost after our discussion on Tuesday.  When covering postmodernism, Jameson believed all art should be original and have meaning.  By drawing on past works with a sense of nostalgia, we were letting go of "serious" culture.  So after our discussion, I went back to my dorm, pulled out my laptop, and typed, "Does art have to have meaning?"  
I was shocked by the overwhelming and differing responses. 

Many people said yes, art has to have meaning.  It seems as though whether or not an artist intends to have meaning, there will always be a viewer that will put their own meaning behind it.  

Others said art isn't about meaning, and it is more about perspective.  Something that looks ordinary to you, could be an extraordinary piece of art to someone else.  (i.e Andy Warhol's soup cans)  Anything could be or not be art to a viewer.  You could argue that a trash can is a piece of art, while the Mona Lisa is just some canvas.  

I remember once I went to museum and there were many abstract pieces of art.  Without much thought, I made a snide remark about how the piece looked like "a splotch on a paper towel after I wipe off the kitchen table."   A man next to me laughed and said, "too bad your paper towels won't end up in a museum!"  

Today, as I scrolled through some more responses to whether or not art needs meaning, I saw a post that resonated with me. Someone wrote, "You begin to appreciate art more when you realize how absurd it is."

In my opinion, Jameson needs to realize art is absurd and crazy and weird.  It can be a soup cans, or a story through picture.  Jameson isn't any authority to tell the world what can and what can't be good art, because he only offers one opinion and one perspective.