I don't get this attitude. Just because the creator didn't meticulously plan out the "meaning" of their creation doesn't negate the fact that when you look at that creation, certain emotions/associations trigger in your brain. Emotions are just the product of ideas. They make you do things. You can look at a painting and say "it looks nice, it makes me happy, that's all art should be", but it's not like the artist had a pot of happiness and slapped it onto a canvas, later to be absorbed through your eyes into your brain. The creator has emotions too. He can paint something which makes him happy or sad without trying to understand why.

I imagine we reject analysis because of "jadedness". Once you become more aware of which stimuli produces what emotion, you can predict them, so you learn less. Maybe that's why any work of art involving sex is almost immediately rejected as meaningless. Sex is one of the strongest sources of pleasure so why would you want to potentially reduce your gain from it.

However, to outright reject "meaning" in certain works of art seems absurd to me.