Many people have different interpretations of things that they may see, whether on a daily basis or on a one off trip, for example in the Tate Modern.
The interpretations made by the audience of the artwork in the Tate Modern may be different as everyone will have different opinions and these opinions effect their conclusions of the art-work they might see.
Some examples of this could include Robert Therrien's 'No Title (A Table And Four Chairs)'. Many people, including myself, didn't think that this was art. After reading the descriptive plaque on a wall to describe the artists views to try to explain his reasons for creating the art, it later changed the way I viewed the piece, therefore the plaque on the wall could have changed the way others saw the table and four chairs.
Another piece experienced at the Tate Modern was Anish Kapoor's structure. As before, you needed to read the plaque on the wall to understand what the artist was thinking. To start off with, it looked like art although it was still unclear what it meant without reading the plaque. It could be the reflection of anything, being distorted and changed to be something else or something new. However, when I read the plaque, my interpretation was completely different to the artist's view - making it feel like my personal interpretation wrong. Taking this into consideration, as well as including my personal opinion, i think artists make artwork with multiple meanings because everyone might read it differently to the original idea, therefore it would make it easier to create different meanings.
If everybody had the same interpretation on art or on every day objects, nothing would be any different because everyone will think the same about those objects. There would be no contrast between something being art or not, there would be no difference in opinion between the art objects, it would make art boring because no one can explore what the meaning of the object or what they think of the object when they see it.