Wednesday, 16 January 2013
John Cleese on Creativity
I couldn't resist sharing this John Cheese video on creativity. It's worth watching in full - some of the references are a little dated but there is so much good sense in it. Some key points echo the tips in the short video on working more productively that I posted recently in this blog post, but there is much interesting reflection. And it's quite funny too. If you don't have time to watch it all I think it is worth watching the last few minutes where he looks at barriers to creativity. We've had a few discussions about effective critique on the OCA Flickr and student forums, and this is particularly for anyone who thinks that swinging criticism is consistent with encouraging creativity (of who's been told that is is good for them).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
_jan_versweyveld.jpg)
Posts
am Eileen, This is a very interesting speech to listen to. Thank you for posting it.
ReplyDeleteI probably missed the whole discussion about effective critique, but it happens that Ireading a book titled "Why Art Cannot be Taught" that talks about Art teaching and Art critique. The author is very skeptical on how Art critique is structured, and if doing any help or it just serves to further confuse students. As for OCA, I all the critique I got are around techniques (ie here is not sharp enough, crop tighter here) but not ideas I come up with. It could be at L4 coming up with idea is not that important.
However, I final thought is, we all seek creativity, but why? Can an art work be still great even if it is not original?
Hi Siegfried - glad you enjoyed it!
ReplyDeleteDiscussions on critique happen from time to time, on both Flickr and the student forum. Personally I don't think there is any serious doubt that art can be taught - why should it be different from any other human activity? My point about critique though wasn't special about art critique. One does sometimes see or hear people commenting very negatively on others' work or attempts to make progress. The points they make may or may not be intellectually or critically valid - that's neither here nor there - my concern is with how the information is delivered. I do think that very critical styles of commenting do more harm than good and are more likely to put people off that inspire them.
I think that if one attempts to work in a creative media then creativity is important. I actually think it's pretty important in many walks of life - problem solving in any sphere, from the administrative through scientific or caring professions, often needs someone to look at a challenge in a fresh way. In art if you are making work that is personal to you, and meaningfully so, it will be original because you are. It will also be likely to be very satisfying and pleasing as most of us do want to make work that we are happy with and that means something to us and communicates things that matter to us. I don't think creativity is necessarily about making some incredibly unique image of a type that has never been seen before. It can be about finding good answers to smaller problems, or just helping you find what kind of work suits you, and developing techniques that help you to make the best work you can make. Almost nothing is entirely original, but no two people see the world in quite the same way, and I think that as a minimum most of us want to find ways to express what we see. So I think creativity in that wider sense does matter, and originality, which is not the same thing, matters also.
The importance of originality is an interesting question. In the west, where we place the individual above society we value originality, but that has not been the tradition in the far east where students were encouraged to make direct copies of their masters work and great technique was valued above originality. So while I think both matter to some degree I think the balance is a matter of choice and culture.
ReplyDeleteEileen, now I understand what type critique you are referring to.
ReplyDeleteAbout whether art can be taught, I tend to think in opposite direction: Since I personally enroll in OCA (an art school), I must believe art can be taught (or else why do I enroll). But is there a chance that what I believe is not true? Well, can you tell me what exactly is photography? If I take out all the syllabus in OCA, is that all photography is composed of? If not, then is OCA is teaching a particular kind of photography? And is this what I wanted?
There is an argument (from that book) that art school aims to inspire, but not to teach. Then my question will be if going to school is the best way to get inspired, and if this inspiration should be taylored to individual but not general syllabus. Or try the other argument: great art cannot be taught, but mediocre art can be taught. Then, do I just want to make some average photographs for my own amusement or am I hoping to create works that stan Ansel Adams? Of is an art school supposed to train us to produce work that is good enough get a job? I always go back to this job question, because money is something measurable. If not, how can we measure the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of going to school and be taught?
I think, ultimate the answer based on individual, but it doesn't mean that we should not have an answer for ourselves. Nigel is right about the difference between east or west. I didn't take art class when I was in China, but somehow creativity was never particularly mentioned anywhere. Personally, it is both interesting and strange to study art in the UK.