which structure is true?
the structure of the following paragraph could be summarized like "his intention is not to do X, doing Y, but rather to do Z". Does it mean:

1. "by doing Y, his intention is not to do X, but rather to do Z"

or

2. "his intention is not to do X (that is doing Y), but rather to do Z)

Context:

But his intention is not to look for universal hidden patterns in art, disavowing a taste for ‘geometrical mysticism…not grounded on any firm sense of what actually went into the design of the works in question’, but rather to acknowledge artists who have consciously looked at the structures of growth in nature and allowed an organic discipline to inform their work both intuitively and with conscious inventiveness.And, does "not grounded " refer to "geometrical mysticism" or "disavowing"?

Question

which structure is true?
the structure of the following paragraph could be summarized like "his intention is not to do X, doing Y, but rather to do Z". Does it mean:

1. "by doing Y, his intention is not to do X, but rather to do Z"

or

2. "his intention is not to do X (that is doing Y), but rather to do Z)

Context:

But his intention is not to look for universal hidden patterns in art, disavowing a taste for ‘geometrical mysticism…not grounded on any firm sense of what actually went into the design of the works in question’, but rather to acknowledge artists who have consciously looked at the structures of growth in nature and allowed an organic discipline to inform their work both intuitively and with conscious inventiveness.And, does "not grounded " refer to "geometrical mysticism" or "disavowing"?

Answer

1 is correct.
"Disavow" means "to deny any responsibility or support for". So "disavowing his taste..." specifies why he doesn't "look for universal hidden patterns in art".

As for what "not grounded" refers to, that's a little difficult for two reasons.
1. The "..." Was something left out that can help us with context, or is it just the style of the author?
2. This whole paragraph in general is indulgent, academic, liberal arts nonsense. The author is throwing around terms like "organic", "structure", and "mysticism". Like most charlatans, they're inventing their own terms to cover up their incoherence and lack of thesis. You shouldn't read that if you want to improve your English.