All are welcome to join the fun.
http://forums.comicgenesis.com/
Since you had the courage to post, I guess I will too.collapse wrote:I want to see someone who started out as badly as I draw and improved tremendously. All these people who say they used to be bad still drew better than I ever have.
I thought I told you to stop talking about me!!Phalanx wrote:edit: Incidentally, I've also noticed a lot of talented people fail in art because they didn't have discipline and persistence; they're the ones who start brilliant projects but never get to finishing anything because they give up halfway.
That's what I believe real talent is. Because it takes a lot of energy to get upon our lazy butts and do something with what we have instead of whining because we weren't born with it.Joel Fagin wrote:However, having known a natural artist, I think art can be either a skill (learnt) or a talent (born-with) - although it's always possible the "talent" is simply a desire to draw (and therefore learn the skill).
Ermm... isn't the word we're looking for 'dedication'?RPin wrote:That's what I believe real talent is. Because it takes a lot of energy to get upon our lazy butts and do something with what we have instead of whining because we weren't born with it.Joel Fagin wrote:However, having known a natural artist, I think art can be either a skill (learnt) or a talent (born-with) - although it's always possible the "talent" is simply a desire to draw (and therefore learn the skill).
Maybe it's just me, but I see no real difference. Either want to draw or you don't. Either you want to improve of you don't. If you don't have the guts, the energy or the interest to learn something new, then you don't have the talent for it.Phalanx wrote:Ermm... isn't the word we're looking for 'dedication'?
That's just it. There are a lot of people I know, especially from art class, whom on being introduced to something new, picked it up incredibly quickly with hardly any effort at all. There are others who had to work weeks to understand the same thing. Then there are those who undertstand it on their own without having to be taught it at all.RPin wrote:Maybe it's just me, but I see no real difference. Either want to draw or you don't. Either you want to improve of you don't. If you don't have the guts, the energy or the interest to learn something new, then you don't have the talent for it.
I'm not sure if this was a response to my post or not, but mine was the only post I immediately see with the word 'elitist', so I'll respond, just in case. I think I'm saying pretty much the same thing you are, only differently. Anyone can become a great artist with enough drive. Period.Jim North wrote:It's elitist to say that everyone can do something with enough practice? Good lord, how harsh it must be to hear that with a little work, you could be a great artist! I'm sure you'd rather hear "Lordy, you suck. Give up, kid. You're not worth a damn and never will be".
It's not that. It's the writing themselves off even before they begin and blaming it on no talent.wp wrote:I'm sorry, but I think it's rash to assume that people who complain just aren't trying hard enough.
I don't know if I can cop to that at all. If that were true, I'd be defined as some sort of savant, because I tend to learn things very quickly, and without much work on my part. If you gave me a day to study, and then quizzed me on how to fix a car, I'd probably pass the quiz, but that doesn't make me a talented mechanic. In the same vein, I'm quite knowledgeable about all sorts of techniques and theories about art. I could write instructional books on the subject, and even the stuff I don't really know I could fake pretty convincingly, and I could have done the same thing the day I learned such things. Would retaining such knowledge make me talented at art, if I couldn't draw a lick?Phalanx wrote:
I don't think talent and dedication are the same thing.
Talent pertains to how quickly you can pick up and understand something.
Dedication is being focused enough to work and attain something.
Not quite, I think. Dedication implies you have to, at least a little, force yourself to do it. Someone with "talent" might just be someone who enjoys it so much and wants to do it so much, that it's like playing computer games for him.Phalanx wrote:Ermm... isn't the word we're looking for 'dedication'?
No, it was in response to Collapse's post right above mine . . . his was in response to yours, however.bustertheclown wrote:I'm not sure if this was a response to my post or not,Jim North wrote:It's elitist to say that everyone can do something with enough practice?
True. Intelligence is merely a potentiality, since environmental factors have an equally important sway in development. However, there have been many experiments that have shown a positive correlation between both personality as well as intelligence with genetic backgrounds.RPin wrote:I wonder what's the main argument that makes people believe talent is inborn.
To believe that, we needed to believe that somehow it's stated in our DNA code what our talents should be. DNA is merely a structure on which our bodies were build, not a blueprint stating what they are going to become.
I remember a few years ago, when the discussion on the ethics of human cloning was still hot, a lot of people afraid that people like Hitler could get cloned. Yeah, technically we could clone Hitler. But what would this clone mean really? For him to become another Hitler, it would be necessary for the clone to experience through his life the exact same conditions on which Hitler was brought up. He had to go thorugh the same childhood traumas, the same poor conditions Hitler faced in the Germany of his time, the same relations with the same people Hitler had to live with and so on.
To prevent a second Hitler from raising, you do not prohibit his DNA to be cloned, instead you prevent the same social conditions on which he was brought up. The same, I think, can be aplied to talent and intelligence.
There are indeed genetic differences that bring some to be more apt at certain activities than others. Black people, for instance, are proved to do better in sports because they have a higher percentage of white fiber in their muscles.
The same can be said for the brain. Some can indeed learn faster than others, have a better eye-to-hand coordination or distinguish colors better. But just like not every black is an athlete, none of this features can develope by themselves without the proper conditions for them to do so. Just for the heck of having them do not make anyone be better at something than someone else. And -that's my point, not one has to have such a DNA structure to build up their talents. Slow learning people can learn too, colorblind people can draw too and people without higher percents of white fiber can still practice sports.
The DNA states what we are, not what we could be or what we should be. Our structures, our intelligence, are not static. People can get smarter or dumber through the course of their lives, and that is based solemnly on the kind of lives they live and their surroundings.
To make an analogy, a white guy could run the same distance a black guy would if he wanted to. The thing is, he just would take longer to get there.
not enough time? Well to me art is fun. I draw to have fun. I don't draw everyday, or sketch everyday. but when I'm looking for somthing to make me smile or have a good time sometimes I go "well I wanna practice drawing" cause to me it sounds like a good time.wp wrote: You can't say with absolute confidence that "someone can become a good artist if he/she practices enough," because there may not be the time. We are not immortal and we have outside interests and *gasp* lives. Therefore if I had enough time, I could become a good artist, but I may never be, depending on my learning curve.
Ah. I get lost in these fast conversations sometimes, but now I'm all caught up.Jim North wrote:No, it was in response to Collapse's post right above mine . . . his was in response to yours, however.bustertheclown wrote:I'm not sure if this was a response to my post or not,Jim North wrote:It's elitist to say that everyone can do something with enough practice?
Well, at least we aren't Thomas Kinkaid.godoftarot wrote:Here's a notion: maybe it doesn't matter anyway, because not everybody wants to be a good artist.
My teacher had us watch this movie about this black artist guy in New York in the 80s. He was an artist but all he wanted from his art was to get famous off it. It didn't have to be good as long as someone would pay him money for it (and those people exist everywhere, for some reason). Maybe he had talent, maybe he didn't. But he didn't care. And anyone who doesn't really care can't become a good artist and maybe all those who do care can. Maybe they can't.
I don't think you could ever define it, in the end. Because nobody has the same defintion of what art is.