Isn't the point that we all bring our own experiences to bear on a piece of work? If we have the language of the "professional" artist, we can use that, if we are a "man-on-the-street" then we bring that. Gilbert and George claim to be creating art for the common man, complaining that the work they were exposed to at college was elitist. One of the most interesting things I have discovered by doing this course is that as an artist matures, so their art somehow seems to speak more clearly, but with fewer "words".
Isn't it for the curators and the critics to write the words that "explain" and "bring out the meaning" to the work? Your job as an artist is to make the art speak without words. That's why I don't care if people like my work or not. If they don't understand it, that's because their experience is different to mine. If they do like and understand it, they certainly won't understand it the way I do. They are not me.
One of my favourite art quotes is from RB Kitaj, that art should "let the whole world in". So for my own criticism, I'm happy if I love a work completely, but I think it's unlikely that there are many works out there that can actually achieve this. But we should strive for this as artists. When Picasso started doing crazy-shit paintings he wasn't letting anyone in. He didn't even understand or like the work much himself. But 100 years later we look at Les demoiselles d'avignon, and we can all understand and appreciate it, because we have a shared experience.
And that's another point from Gilbert and George... they are making work to influence the next generation, to change the moral fabric of society, in much the same way that Oscar Wilde or DH Lawrence did. We read them with little real understanding of the antagonism they created, because society has changed. In 100 years, Gilbert and George will be seen in much the same "what was the controversy?" light.
If you want your work to have meaning, look at it. Ask yourself if it does have meaning. Does it speak to you without words? I'm always a little suspicious of artworks that have an A4 page of writing interpreting them (though I don't mind some socio-political background to help place the work in a period of time). If your work makes you feel something, but you can't describe that feeling, then maybe that is all you can hope for.
I think this would be a nice exercise of all of us... to put up a piece of work and ask everyone to comment on the feelings, thoughts, ideas, beliefs, concepts etc. that WE bring to the work. That will tell you whether the work has meaning or not.
For example, Clare's Pigeon Feet http://oca-student.com/lms/mod/gallery/view.php?id=20&g2_itemId=438 is one of the most... grr... I can't even think of the words.... but hey, that's great. I respond to that work on some primal level which is before words even work. It's incredible. I could talk about the colour, the absence of bodies, the symbolism of feet, the path of crumbs (Gingerbread House?) or stones (which way am I going in life?). But that's the curator's or critic's job. I want art to mean something to me without the words.
