I do not want to use the transformation rules when discovered to undo the transformation or to "decode" the message. To translate the art object into mythology and then to examine the mythology would be only a neat way of dodging or negating the problem of "what is art?"
I ask, then, not about the meaning of the encoded message but rather about the meaning of the code chosen. But still that most slippery word "meaning" must be defined.
It will be convenient to define meaning in the most general possible way in the first instance.
"Meaning" may be regarded as an approximate synonym of pattern, redundancy, information and "restraint," within a paradigm of the following sort:
Any aggregate of events or objects (e.g., a sequence of phonemes, a painting, or a frog, or a culture) shall be said to contain "redundancy" or "pattern" if the aggregate can be divided in any way by a "slash mark," such that an observer perceiving only what is on one side of the slash mark can
guess, with better than random success, what is on the other side of the slash mark. We may say that what is on one side of the slash contains
information or has
meaning about what is on the other side.