I'm kind of getting at both. Magicians receive catch a lot of slack because they're seen as one of the bottom feeders of the entertainment world. An act can certainly be entertaining without being artistic, and things can certainly be artistic without being entertaining. This thread points at an act that is described as "Pure beautiful art" so I was thinking along the artistic side. To me, art needs to evoke thought or feelings. This act did neither for me. It's eye candy.
Do all magic acts need to be art? No. I enjoy a couple acts that don't point to deeper meanings, but are very entertaining. I've watched Ricky Jay and his 52 Assistants probably over a hundred times. While I enjoy it thoroughly, it's not deeply meaningful, but it is entertaining to me.
As for acts that point to a greater truth, I don't really know many. The only two things I can think of right now are Jansenson's talk at the EMC and some of Derren Brown's work. I know there are several people who claim to empower their spectators, but I haven't seen those people perform so I don't know if I'd agree. I know that I, personally, try to do this but I also haven't been doing it long enough to know if I'm effective at it.
Most magic that I see is done because the person can do it. That is the depth and extent of the meaning behind it. I do think that there is a bit of a shift happening where people want to do more meaningful magic, I just don't know if I'm being hopeful, or if it will even actually happen.