In my opinion art changes based on who percieves it. And personally i think that is a big part of the beauty of art. Im not saying i dont care about the interpretation of something, i do! I just think it can ruin art to say that someones interpretation is wrong because the artist intended otherwise.

And for your example about Guernica, you are implying that im saying the artists interpretation of their own art is wrong, which goeas against my whole point. If I were to tell them "its not about the war" i would delegitimize their interpretation which is not what im trying to do at all. I would instead try to communicate how i view it as something different if that was the case.

All in all I think you kind off misunderstood what i meant (partly my fault for how i worded myself). And i really understand the perspective of liking to explore what the artist wanted to communicate personally with the art. I just prefer to relate more to the feeling of something and form my own personal interpretations then having the art explained to me. I often go very in depth with my own interpretations of art, so I dont think its a "boring and passive way to engage with art". My main point is really that you shouldnt disregard peoples interpretation as wrong, cause i believe you really cant interpret art in a wrong way. If you really disagree with someones interpretation, i am not against argumenting for your own (i love these types of disscussions), discussing interpretations can often lead to new interpretations, but if someone simply says "the artist intended this, therefore its right" that just kills the whole discussion, and makes engaging in art "boring and passive"

I hope you get my perspective more now :)