It's not that the creative act and the critical act are simultaneous. It's more like you blurt something out and then analyze it.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The creative act is like writing a letter. A letter is a project; you don't sit down to write a letter unless you know what you want to say and to whom you want to say it.
The creative act is also in a small way a suffering act - we start out with our ego, this hope of making this thing whatever it be, but so often it eludes us and it collapses and we kind of regress into this mental suffering, we can't find what we're looking for.
Part of being creative is not being super-duper focused.
When improvisation is properly applied, it is compositional thinking, sped way up.
The creative act is not pure. History evidences it. Sociology extracts it. The writer loses Eden, writes to be read and comes to realize that he is answerable.
Effort and result are never simultaneous. In art, only the result counts.
Improvisation is not a presentational form, except in small doses, or as a game. It's a tool.
You may stifle your creativity by learning too much about processes that should be spontaneous and automatic.
Whether it's music or acting, that creativity all comes from the same source.
Writing and directing might be a red herring, and really I'm just re-examining what it is to act, to do it well and do it properly.
No opposing quotes found.