What seems to be at the heart of the issue is that to be truly spontaneous the artist actually requires a great deal of learning and control. In this sense spontaneity in art - as in musical performance or composition (such as jazz) or in conversation (wit) - has a legitimate function. It charms, delights, disarms through its artlessness, and, when indulged by a master, can result in a more natural air to composition, rhythm, or gesture. Spontaneity in this sense is little different from improvisation; but improvisation, though not deliberate in the sense of composed work, still demands great keenness of intellect and a sure grasp of facts and technique. Often the most affecting parts of a speech are those where the orator leaves aside his notes and speaks spontaneously from the heart. But it is hardly spontaneous (in a good sense) if he starts flitting from one unrelated subject to another. That might make good stream of consciousness but not good art.
There is a great difference between spontaneity and mere caprice.
regards,
Iian
