Intention to not provide a reason for creation of a work _is_ having something in mind. To recapitulate, they had in mind creation of a work with no intrinsic

Intention to not provide a reason for creation of a work _is_ having something in mind. To recapitulate, they had in mind creation of a work with no intrinsic meaning. Accidental art, if it is possible, has been of interest to me for a decade or so; my conclusion (limited as it is) is that it is not art. However, finding an object and imbuing it with meaning is an artistic endeavour, so if the painter were able to produce work devoid of intrinsic meaning then it would become art if a person finds the work and imprints a meaning on it. Quintessential postmodernity, I guess. It's an interesting area. It reminds me of reading a poet's reaction to reading an analysis an educational organisation had applied to that poet's work: you know the sort of thing 'the poet used the darkness of the sky to highlight the sense of foreboding of the hero'. The poet did not recognise any of their motivations in the analysis that was (IIRC) being taught to schoolchildren. Consciously they had been very plain in their approach of recording a (fictional) event ... of course they might have subconsciously made choices in language that would follow the analysis given ...