Isn't conveying messages through art one of the purposes for creating it?

When some artists here in India saw my work they said, " Although your works look simple, they convey very strong messages". Several of my scientist friends and colleagues too appreciated me for making science and its messages so simple through my art work. However, recently one artist from another part of the world said: "Art doesn't convey any messages and art doesn't represent anything". This statement is completely opposite to what people here think.
It might be his point of view originating from his culture but many in all the art branches like movies, theater, painting convey strong messages through art in India. Didn't Steven Speilberg try to convey the message not to play with genes and tinker with nature & science when he created Jurassic Park by showing the consequences of such mindless acts? Didn't this movie and other science fiction movies represent science in the field of art? Doesn't art represent culture, religion & all those themes it originates from including science? When Shakespeare said, "Sweet are the uses of adversity", didn't he convey a message through drama and theater? Likewise people who want to convey messages through paintings also exist. People who want to see and understand it can do so & people who don't want to see it cannot!
I want to know what my friends here think about it. Should or shouldn't art convey messages for the benefit of the societies it thrives in? Isn't conveying messages through art one of the purposes for creating it? And doesn't art represent anything?