Once I'd tittered about that one a little, I went on to read the legendary creative man's musings on "good" and "great". I go with him all the way when the subject is avoiding the safe and the ordinary.
But I do take issue with the topic of "good" vs. "great" - and which is more desirable. There's an assumption somewhere here that "good" is rather like "nice" - aka "mediocre".
My view is, that especially today, the two are not a linear progression. Think about it this way. Go back to the Middle Ages and imagine two kings. After Steve, let's call then Henry. There's Henry the Good and Henry the Great. Which of the two was a better king? Or, more to the point, who would you rather have lived under?
My bet is that Henry the Great would have been rampaging around the outer reaches of the known world somewhere, using his people's money to bash up barbarians with a massive spiked ball on a chain. This would be the equivalent of making a big noise at the Creative Awards, I guess.
Henry the Good, on the other hand, was probably taxing all the barons who'd got too big for their boots to provide free mead and ox-roasts for all his subjects.
A question of loyalty, perhaps?