Circular Discussion?

This is my first humanities class, and I have never had any interest in any sort of humanities other than music. With that being said, this class is exposing me to a whole new world that I quite honestly have never had a desire to enter. But now that I have to enter this new world, I figured I would at least try to get something out of it.
Since this is all new to me, I am still trying to get an understanding of humanities and what it's purpose is. Throughout class discussion I had a few thoughts that made me question if there really is any point to studying humanities, or at least some aspects of it.
As we were talking about Picasso's paintings, Les Demoiselles d'Avignon (the prostitutes) in particular, the class discussion started to go in the direction of questioning whether artists intentionally put very in-depth meaning and symbolism in their work, or if they it is just the audience trying to pull more out of the work than really is there. Sometimes I highly doubt that what we (the audience) think the artist meant is really his/her intent. An example of this would be our class discussion about what Picasso chose the background to be in his painting of the prostitutes. One could make the case that he chose the blue and grey to show that they have a gloomy past, and the the dull fruit represents the prostitutes' potential to live bright colorful lives, but instead that potential to live 'fruitful' lives is gone and their lifestyles are colorless and bland. While that could potentially be what he intended, someone else can just as easily make the case that Picasso did not intend any of those things. It is just as likely that he simply thought it would add nicely to the overall feel of the painting. We will never know what Picasso intended so both ideas are just guesses.

That brings me to my next point... We will never know what the artist intended, so why debate and try to figure out what they meant for the audience to get out of it? We can talk about it endlessly and still never prove on thing or the other.Some artists might paint to satisfy their audience and make a hefty amount of money. Or maybe some artists do not create their works for an audience and use art as an emotional outlet or personal expression. That is yet another question that we can never get a definite answer to. Like we discussed in class, an artist might publicly say they intended one thing, but can you trust them? They could say they meant it to be one thing to satisfy the audience, but in reality what they say could be completely different from what they meant for their work to be.

These thoughts have brought me to the conclusion that since we will never be able to know what the artist meant, there is no point to dig deep and try to figure out exactly what they meant. I feel that art is something that is all about personal preference. It isn't about what the artist meant, it is about the emotion that the art pulls out of you.
Are all discussions about the meaning of artwork pointless and never-ending since we will never find a definite answer?