Significant or Irrelevant?

In Bell's view, a work of art's subject matter and symbolism are irrelevant, if not downright distracting, to the overall work, and I find this incredibly hard to believe. I think it cheapens the entire experience to say that art is nothing more than a certain way of arranging lines and colours. I dont believe that something necessarily HAS to have some intrinsic deeper meaning or intricate symbolism for it to be considered artwork, but I also dont believe that this aspect should be completely disregarded all together. I have taken many art classes, and I have frequently worked independently. Through both of these experiences, I have accrued many pieces that Ive done over the years. Some of them were assignments that I had no interest in completing and for which I sort of did the bare minimum. Others were completely of my own volition and creativity, and others still were a mixture of the two. I think that some art may not have any meaning, symbolism, or significance, and that's okay. But I believe that the pieces of art that do have contextual or subliminal meaning should definitely recieve credit for those aspects. The artist either intended for them to be there or was affected by his/her surroundings and it came across in the piece, and he/she should not be robbed of that 2nd layer of richness.
Q: Do you think that artwork created for an art class or as an assignment should still be considered art?