John Cleese loovusest
1972. aastal lõi Briti näitleja, koomik ja filmiprodutsent John Cleese koos Söör Antony Jay (Jah, härra minister!) ja teiste teles töötanud inimestega videotreeninguid tootva firma Video Arts. 1991. aastal pidas Cleese Video Artsi jaoks loengu loovusest. Tänapäevases kontekstis võib see tunduda liiga pikk, kuid see 36 minutit tasub vaatamise vaeva küllaga. Film on inglise keeles, flaamikeelsete subtiitritega.
Sama video Youtube’is.
John Cleese alustab oma loengut järgmiselt:
“So, the prospect of settling down for quite serious study of creative for the purpose of tonight’s gossip, was delightful, and having spent several weeks on it, I can state categorically that what I have to tell you tonight about how you can all become more creative is a complete waste of time.”
Sellele järgneb hulk nalju lambipirni vahetamise teemal – mis karvavõrdki ei kahanda Cleese’i juttu sisu. Mõned väljavõtted, mis juhatavad teemasse:
It is easier to say what creativity isn’t. Creativity is not a talent. It is not a talent, it is a way of operating.
You see when I say “a way of operating” what I mean is this: creativity is not an ability that you either have or do not have. It is, for example, (and this may surprise you) absolutely unrelated to IQ. MacKinnon showed in investigating scientists, architects, engineers, and writers that those regarded by their peers as “most creative” were in no way whatsoever different in IQ from their less creative colleagues.
So in what way were they different?
MacKinnon showed that the most creative had simply acquired a facility for getting themselves into a particular mood – “a way of operating” – which allowed their natural creativity to function. In fact, MacKinnon described this particular facility as an ability to play.
Indeed he described the most creative (when in this mood) as being childlike. For they were able to play with ideas… to explore them… not for any immediate practical purpose but just for enjoyment. Play for its own sake.
Edasi jätkab Cleese kahte erinevat sorti meeleseisundi kirjeldamisega.
We can usually describe the way in which people function at work in terms of two modes: open and closed. So what I can just add now is that creativity is not possible in the closed mode.
By the “closed mode” I mean the mode that we are in most of the time when we are at work. It has a little tension in it, not much humor. It’s a mode in which we’re very purposeful, and it’s a mode in which we can get very stressed and even a bit manic, but not creative.
By contrast, the open mode, is relaxed… expansive… less purposeful mode… in which we’re probably more contemplative, more inclined to humor (which always accompanies a wider perspective) and, consequently, more playful.
It’s a mood in which curiosity for its own sake can operate because we’re not under pressure to get a specific thing done quickly. We can play, and that is what allows our natural creativity to surface.
Küsimus pole siiski selles, et üks meeleseisund oleks parem ja teine halvem. Me vajame mõlemat:
But let me make one thing quite clear: we need to be in the open mode when we’re pondering a problem but once we come up with a solution, we must then switch to the closed mode to implement it. Because once we’ve made a decision, we are efficient only if we go through with it decisively, undistracted by doubts about its correctness.
But here’s the problem: we too often get stuck in the closed mode.
Kuhu jutt edasi viib, peab igaüks juba ise vaatama. Muuhulgas saame teada, mida teha, et organisatsioonis igasugune loovus maha tappa. Aga see väärib juba täiesti uut artiklit.
Lõpetuseks üks paljudest lambipirni vahetamise naljadest:
Mitu rahvalauljat on vaja lambipirni vahetamiseks? Vastus: viite, üks vahetab pirni ja neli laulavad sellest, kui palju vana pirn oli parem.
Väärt iga sekundit!