aparentemene, dos visitantes do café só eu tenho paciência para ler o momus. então aqui, um pouco de copiar colar de um texto bem mais longo dele, mas bem interessante sobre como limitações auto-impostas podem ser ser interssantes para a criatividade.

como explicação, deixa eu dizer o seguinte: posso entediar alguns leitores ocasionalmente, mas entre outras coisas esse blog é um caderno, onde anoto coisas que não quero perder. então posso falar sozinho de vez em quando.

a quem interessar, então:

an experiment on Peacock inspired by Kurt Schwitters, who used to set himself the challenge of, for instance, making a collage based only on materials he found rummaging through his wife's wastepaper basket. Jones' experiment asked Peacock to tell stories using random and unrelated words while lying in a brain scanner. His hypothesis (later proven by the brain scans and subjective judgements of the stories) was that Peacock would produce more creative stories, and use his brain more actively, when given more random, less related words to work with.

...

The experiment got me thinking about the importance of limitation, of making self-imposed rules which restrict that awful "anything is possible" feeling we get confronted by a blank sheet of paper (or a blank CD). Without limitation, it's easy to sink into what Brian Eno calls "the mire of options", or to fall into other people's styles, or the dominant formulas of the day.

...

When I'm planning an album I tend to do something I call "signature specification", which could also be seen as a voluntary restriction of my own freedom. They're just guidelines, and of course you end up rebelling against them and breaking them, but they construct a sort of plank walkway across the "mire of options". They focus your thoughts. And if they're weird and random enough, I believe they make your work more creative.