A Quote by Raoul Peck

I consider myself first of all an artist. My work is about my creativity - why I create and not for whom. — © Raoul Peck
I consider myself first of all an artist. My work is about my creativity - why I create and not for whom.
I consider myself a digital artist, so what I'll do is create everything with technology.
I don't consider myself a competition to anyone. There is ample space for everyone here. When there are directors who create characters for me, why should I feel bothered or insecure? When it comes to updating myself, I work very hard to relate to the emotions of characters I play.
That is why the analogy of stealing does not work. With a thief, we want to know how much money he or she stole, and from whom? With the artist it is not how much he or she took from whom, but what the artist did with it.
The key question isn't "What fosters creativity?" But why in God's name isn't everyone creative? Where was the human potential lost? How was it crippled? I think therefore a good question might not be why do people create? But why do people not create or innovate? We have got to abandon that sense of amazement in the face of creativity, as if it were a miracle that anybody created anything.
Why was the painting made? What ideas of the artist can we sense? Can the personality and sensitivity of the artist be felt when studying the work? What is the artist telling us about his or her feelings about the subject? What response do I get from the message of the artist? Do I know the artist better because of the painting?
I don't consider myself an expert in the why. I don't consider myself an expert in leadership. I consider myself a student of leadership and I consider myself a student of the why. I'm constantly learning and I'm constantly looking for opportunities where it it will fail.
I consider myself a Londoner first, and then I consider myself Brazilian before I consider myself English.
I don't consider myself an artist. I consider myself a very opinionated man who uses words as fighting tools.
That is why the analogy of stealing does not work. With a thief, we want to know how much money he stole, and from whom. With the artist it is not how much he took and from whom, but what he did with it.
I don't consider myself an entertainer. I consider myself an artist, and I think with that comes responsibility.
I consider creativity to be a more non-rational, subconscious thing. You have a relationship to your creativity - you can feed it with content, with some rational prodding and sleep and things like that, but the mechanisms by which your creativity work are largely unknown.
I think an artist can fit under a few different categories depending on how much you explore your creativity. It can vary from artist to artist from musician to performer to vocalist. I thrive on creativity. So in the long run I want to be an all around entertainer.
In a weird way, I never wanted - I don't consider myself a very good writer. I consider myself okay; I don't consider myself great. There's Woody Allen and Aaron Sorkin. There's Quentin Tarantino. I'm not ever gonna be on that level. But I do consider myself a good filmmaker.
Does madness bring creativity? Or does creativity cause madness? Can an artist create without the ups so high and the downs so low?
I consider myself more of an international artist than I do a one-territory artist, which I think is a blessing.
I don't consider myself a great drummer. I consider myself just a music fan that's a very, very passionate artist, and the drums just happen to be my instrument.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!