A story must be rational.

So, what's your point? Do you recommend that a story make sense (and thus be mundane) or not? 'Cause an erratic story can be frustrating and annoying (if poorly crafted). Like --- what's the point?

I would say that all art makes sense. You cant make art that wont be interpreted. Because the human brain always looking for patterns. Even if you present it with static chaos you brain will make up patterns and psudo patterns that fit it. There will be there in the eyes of the beholder.

But it doesn't have to have an intentional meaning.

Excellent, excellent, excellent blog, man. Agree completely.

Perfect.

When Samuel Beckett was asked by Alan Schneider the meaning of the character Godot in his cryptic masterpiece Waiting for Godot, Beckett replied much like your painter, "If I'd known, I would have said it in the play."

Writing shouldn't always be surface-level literal narrative like some contemporary pop country western song. Why shouldn't our medium effect people in ways similar to abstract art, or instrumental music? A story is clearly something much greater than the sum of its words; use it to pull the reader somewhere words alone can't take them.

So then, anyone can compose any 'crap' (excuse my French) in the name of leaving it to our sub-conscious to grapple? And, yes, I know, I know; one man's crap is another's cuisine. But, come on! Jackson Pollock --art?!

No. We not saying that everyone can compose quality, but that every one will find a pattern of meaning. If you sneeze in a napkin, you brain will find a pattern and interpretation in how you snot looks, if you are searching for it. Or tea leaves in the botten of a cup. Or a random line in a random page of a book. Or a a collection of tarot cards. Ot the lines on you hand.

Every random sting or tunes, splash of color, or string of words will invoke some feeling and meaning because you brain is searching for patterns. It just like watching clouds as a kids.

But just because you brain can find a pattern in the snot on a napkin, it doesn't mean it got any quality.

Yes, my dear w176, but that search for a pattern is based on already established meanings. When i look at the clouds and see a horse, or face, or whatever, it's because someone else earlier has established the reality and meaning of what a horse, face, or whatever is. If I didn't have prior rational knowledge of these things, I wouldn't be able to make any sense of the clouds. My mind would see no patterns, as I have no rational base to focus on. Do you get me? Blessed are the stories with meaning --though they be deep and elusive. (And, by the way, there is a concrete meaning to the Godot story).

Just because some French guy with a degree can tell you Godot's "concrete meaning" doesn't make his words true. And if you can't see that Pollock's work is art on any level we're going to have a real hard time finding common ground in this conversation.

It doesn't sound like you're really groking what's being pointed to here. It's not that you're throwing random words on paper or saying the first thing that comes to your mind in each moment. But have you never been seized by some profound creative impulse that resonates deep in your core without your having any intellectual understanding of what it is or how it works or where it's coming from? Have you never read anything that does the same?

Art, true art, doesn't come from the same surface-level intellect that helps us figure out the fastest way to get to work or how to convince our friend to come to a party with us, nor does it resonate with the audience merely on that level. If someone says "This piece is great because of X concrete, tangible facts and for no other reason," then either they're an asshole or the artist is.

Pollock's work is art --on some level
And, have I become too academized, or isn't it 'natural' for the human mind to try and rationalize, understand, make sense of these creative impulses that reside deep in our cores? Granted, the impulse spontaneously occurs first, but, very shortly, doesn't the mind try to 'fit' it into some schema?
I agree, art --true art-- shouldn't be based (boxed up) on some pre-conceived surface-level intellect. But, it does operate on some level of intellect. When I'm deeply moved to write something, even in my mad passion, there's still some underlying reason --meaning-- behind the madness. The intellect catches up with the impulse and they gel. Otherwise, my work comes to resemble that psycho-killer who said he did it because of some compelling inner voice that he couldn't resist. I wouldn't want to have artist's tourette.
You may not comprehend the rational behind my work, nor I yours, but there's always (well, usually) one.

I think you're complicating it too much. I can look at something, not grasp it intellectually, yet still say, "Oh, how beautiful!" Maybe you can't. But as far as this reader is concerned, that writer has succeeded at his task and I'll be keeping an eye out for him in the future.

^^^ Another excellent post; agree 100% once more. You should blog more, dude.