John Cleese on creativity and cultivating the “intermediate impossible” as a means to arriving at originality.

In summary……….creativity is not a talent but a quality of being able to arrange yourself for openness of thought and withstanding the discomfort of an unresolved dilemna.

My observations are:

  1. Is the result of creativity always originality?
  2. Is creativity the process and originality the product?
  3. If we all developed our creativity, then would we have access to that much originality of thought?
  4. If deliberate random juxtapositions are the necessary stepping-stones, (or the “intermediate impossibles),” then have we mechanized the process of deliberate random juxtapositions in the internet?
  5. Then we, the audience/users of the internet become the “sniff test” for relevance of new thoughts?
This entry was posted in Art, Humanity, Process, Quotes and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to John Cleese on creativity and cultivating the “intermediate impossible” as a means to arriving at originality.

  1. I think that this means that every school day should begin with a certain amount of ridiculousness?

  2. In answer to your hypotheses:
    1) Yes, originality is always the result of true creativity, even if it is in the form of eclecticism.
    2) No, there is no distinction between process and product, they are different sides of the same coin … although creativity is a necessary precursor to originality.
    3) Yes, originality is infinite. Creativity is not a zero-sum game: your creativity doesn’t diminish my potential to be original and my creativity doesn’t diminish your potential to be original.
    4) Random juxtapositions and “intermediate possibilities” are big fancy phrases for a process that the unfettered mind does naturally: it wanders. Surfing the internet has increased the quantity but not the quality of random juxtapositions. The internet is not a mechanization of the process, it is both the product and the process, as referred to in answer #2 above.
    5) No, users of the internet do not define relevance of anything, including new thoughts. Users of the internet are a hive. The chances of a single mind producing a creative thought increases through interaction. The internet increases interactions.
    Much Friendly Warmth To You And Patricia McGillis, Joan Clifford
    PS- The blog is looking fantastic; I’ll send out links to those that I think can appreciate it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s