Conceptualism/Uncreative Writing

Uncreative writing is probably the most uninteresting literature to read, yet I find the concept intensely appealing. Because uncreative writing is so abstract and emotionally dry, it is more a work of art than a form of writing. When you read a traditional/"creative" text, even one written under extreme limitations, there is some sort of meaning the reader can pull together. However, when I read these pieces for today, I had no clue what the heck the authors were talking about/trying to say. It was like reading a puzzle made of piece that are impossible to connect. But Goldsmith says that it is the author's good idea that makes uncreative writing successful. But how do we know what the author's idea was initially? And since the author's thought process is completely inaccessible, how is a reader supposed to gain anything from reading uncreative writing? "Uncreative writing is not utilitarian" so what is the purpose in writing it?