Think Make, acting instead of talking, isn’t new and isn’t limited to design. Last night, I read this in Keith Johnstone’s Impro: Improvisation and the Theatre:
“My bias against discussion is something I’ve learned to see as very English. I’ve known political theatre groups in Europe which would readily cancel a rehearsal, but never a discussion. My feeling is that the best argument may be a testimony to the skill of the presenter, rather than to the excellence of the solution advocated. Also the bulk of discussion time is visibly taken up with the transactions of status which have nothing to do with the problem to be solved. My attitude is like Edison’s, who found a solvent for rubber by putting bits of rubber in every solution he could think of, and beat all those scientists who were approaching the problem theoretically.”
Think. Make. Go.
Also, while reading Impro, I found myself asking: By studying a subject’s rules, guidelines, and best practices, do we become less creative? For instance, in design, usability guidelines may help a product be used, but does it also prevent leaps in innovation and creative interfaces? Johnstone talking about becoming a theatre director:
“Obviously, I felt I ought to study my craft, but the more I understood how things ought to be done, the more boring my productions were. Then as now, when I’m inspired, everything is fine, but when I try to get things right it’s a disaster. In a way I was successful – I ended up as the Associate Director of the Theatre – but once again my talent had left me.
When I considered the difference between myself, and other people, I thought of myself as a late developer. Most people lost their talent at puberty. I lost mine in my early twenties. I began to think of children not as immature adults, but of adults as atrophied children.”
What do you think? Does this only apply to creativity, not craft? Or art, not design?
1 Comment »