So, I have a few things to unpack from this. Art is in the eye of the beholder. An artist may create something with no meaning, but the viewer ascribes their own meaning to it. I've seen paintings that were absolute crap, and people who see it are emotionally drawn to it for their own personal reasons. I have bought paintings before because they had a different meaning to me than what the artist intended. Also, his art does have meaning. He put it there as an experiment, therefore it has meaning as such, and everyone who sees it will ascribe their own meaning to it. And I suspect, his true reason for doing this is so he can brag to all his friends that he has a painting hanging in the Tate. I actually know someone who did this. He snuck one of his wife's paintings into the Louvre and stuck it in a wall that was being renovated, so his wife could say she has a painting in the Louvre. I'm not defending bad art (I used to run an art gallery...I sure have seen my fair share of it), and I'm not denying that most high-value art sales are money laundering operations, but I'm pointing out that his experiment is faulty, and everyone sees something different when they look at a piece of art.