Sy&Se

I have been quite annoyed whenever asked for , or directly confronted to certain interpretations of bizarre shapes I produce on paper, which I can hardly classify as anything. They want "meaning", "significances", the explication of certain presupposed existence of sth which has a shape, elucidation and motivation, because they cannot tolerate the autonomy of a well-formed structure. Depriving of "meaning" is admitting it is done on impluse. I don't think it is impulse, or can I refuse that it is not. But the structure has much to do with what they consider "meaningful". The inner, or innate je ne sais quoi seems to me more faithfully "brought out" by the structures, but one thing I am sure about is that it is definitely what they call "meaning" in the conventional way. Even, if I may say, the perceptible shapes do not only funtion to represent, but ARE DIRECTLY part of the inme.