unanswered questions

I had this professor in college who made it clear that a piece of work what not art unless it was beholding some great message about life. Is it wrong to be inspired by the simplest of details of the physicality of the work. Cannot the contrast of light and dark, the delicate line of the pencil, the depth and beauty of the color be inspirtion for both the artist and the viewer? The delicate line the pencil creates of the women's features onto the paper are a reminder of the delicate nature of the skin, the fragileness of human life, giving an appreciation for our existence in our harsh world. He was my favorite professor. Hated by most (and most failed his class), he pushed our limits as artists, forcing us to think about what and why we are artists; what impact art has on the threads of our society. I believe that art should not be based on feeling and fact alone, but i've learned that the physicality of the piece can indeed be a vehicle for interpretating a meaning.