Do you have to be born a good artist?

Sam_Charette · Post by **Sam_Charette** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 11:46 am

Have you tried drawing from what you see, Collapse? Honestly your drawings kind of remind me of my own, in large part, a few years back, but only the ones I tried to draw from my head. I draw much better when I can actually see the subject.

Post by **Mercury Hat** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 12:08 pm

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.

You could always look at my old stuff. It was bad, bad, bad. I'm still surprised how much I've improved in under a year, though I still have a lot of room for improvement. But hey, at least I figured out proportions and stuff.

Alaina · Post by **Alaina** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 12:11 pm

Natural artistic talent doesn't amount to that much. It only takes you so far; it's work and practice that make people good.

[swear I'm not bragging just making a point] I was born with a lot of artistic talent and pretty much did great at any medium (except for collaging. My god, I hate glue.) but now I'm stuck in a rut, I've reached the end of my rope, and other terrible cliches. I'm just too lazy to make myself better but I see people who couldn't draw anything more than a stick figure doing better than me now just because they practice.

After all, practie makes perfct.
I mean, pratice make perfect.
Wait, pratice makes perfecte.
Damnit, practice makes perfect.

Terotrous · Post by **Terotrous** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 12:24 pm

In its absolute most reduced form, art is just moving a pencil on a paper (or a mouse or whatever). The good artists aren't capable of moving that pencil in any sorts of different ways or directions than the rest of us, so there's no reason why someone would be incapable of producing a good drawing. After all, we can all trace a picture.

Now obviously you have to know where to draw your lines when you do art, and that's the part everyone has trouble with. However, I don't see what part of this would be unlearnable. Nothing about this process seems inheritly impossible, but it takes some people longer than others to learn different things.

Godoftarot · Post by **Godoftarot** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 12:34 pm

Sam_Charette wrote:Barring physical or mental disabilities, I'd have to say that anyone can learn to draw. It is a skill that requires certain things, such as dexterity, imagination and a certain perspective (namely proportions).

Speaking as someone with physical and mental disablities, I don't think that can stop you from becoming a good artist. Okay, so I'm not great, but I'm a hell of a lot better than I was when I started.

Bustertheclown · Post by **Bustertheclown** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 12:39 pm

That whole "I'm a good artist, and I believe I am because it's and inborn talent" bit seems like a line of elitist bullcrap to me. I say this as a guy who has been persuing a life in art since I was ten years old, and teaching art since for years now. One of my favorite lines on the nature of education versus talent was stated like this:

"Every five year old KNOWS they can draw. Just ask them."

The point is, the whole 'talent' aspect of art seems to be drummed out of all but the most stubborn kids between starting their primary education, and ending it. It causes me to think that the definition of talent is perserverance and enjoyment. After all, being able to make art well comes down to education, creativity, skill, and discipline. Being able to tie all those factors together, as any good artist could tell you, takes a lot of very hard work over a long period of time. It doesn't come instantaneously.

With that in mind, loving what you do and seeking out such practice is the only way you will get better. We've all seen examples of kids who are doing something that they don't want to do because they're told to. Even if there is a technical proficiency to it, there is no love. We've also seen people who honestly have a natural aptitude for art, but never really seek to get better at it or persue it outside of the realm of hobby.

Think about it. What makes a talented physician? What makes a talented mechanic? What makes a talented bus-boy? The talent that defines anyone who is great at their job comes down to their love of that job. It is love that drives them to find success at it, it is love that drives them to gain knowledge and skill at it. It is love that causes them to take pride in their abilities. It is love that causes us to choose what we want to do and do it well. So, in essence, based upon my experience with this, talent = love.

Wp · Post by Wp » Sun Dec 05, 2004 12:43 pm

You guys deflect my comment on drawing proportions with a mere model that can't even bend in enough directions to depict a natural pose. The problem is that I had a model, I had drawing books, I pored over the internet to compare drawings and I even used rulers, head lengths, finger widths etc... to finally figure out a decent way to draw bodies proportionately. If I could only show you guys the pages I threw out to get proportions correct. It takes practice to become a good artist, but some people will never be that good. And it doesn't do aspiring artists any good to show drawings that were supposed to be poor but still are better than anything that said artists have come up with.

Sam_Charette · Post by **Sam_Charette** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:11 pm

godoftarot wrote:Speaking as someone with physical and mental disablities, I don't think that can stop you from becoming a good artist. Okay, so I'm not great, but I'm a hell of a lot better than I was when I started.

I think you were taking what I said in too light-spirited a way. There are some disabilities that don't affect you enough to stop you from becoming a great artist, and some that, for the most part, do.

Now, granted not much can stop a determined individual, but I think it's safe to say, in general, that there are some things that make it just too difficult for anyone without inhuman levels of determination.

That said, you're kind of arguing my point for me. Someone with enough determination CAN overcome difficulties. Anyone CAN become a great artist. It just takes more work for some than for others.

Collapse · Post by **Collapse** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:35 pm

Visual-Spatial ability is an inborn mental construct that allows the brain to analyze proportions, distances, perspectives

I sure as hell don't have that.

Have you tried drawing from what you see, Collapse? Honestly your drawings kind of remind me of my own, in large part, a few years back, but only the ones I tried to draw from my head. I draw much better when I can actually see the subject.

Yeah... God only knows how it turns out worse when I do that.

RPin · Post by **RPin** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:39 pm

collapse wrote:
Visual-Spatial ability is an inborn mental construct that allows the brain to analyze proportions, distances, perspectives

It is not inborn.

Collapse · Post by **Collapse** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:41 pm

Neko said that, not me. I was quoting him.

RPin · Post by **RPin** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:45 pm

Does it matter who said that? I wasn't lecturing anyone in particular.

Collapse · Post by **Collapse** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:58 pm

Oh.

That whole "I'm a good artist, and I believe I am because it's and inborn talent" bit seems like a line of elitist bullcrap to me

Eh? I'd say the opposite is true. All the people who say art is something you develop, rather than being born with, are people who are good artists. I don't think that's correct; those people are born with the talent to improve their art. Then they say "Oh, anyone can draw, you just have to practice! You just need to work harder!" Now that seems like elitest bullcrap to me. You say anyone can do it, and that just makes the people who can't do it feel that much worse.

Jim North · Post by **Jim North** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 2:19 pm

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".

And while your artistic abilities can be helped along by having talent, I've seen several times over that a little talent and a lot of learned skill will take you light-years farther than a lot of talent and a little skill. My mom is a wonderful artist and it's obvious she has talent dripping straight from her fingertips onto canvas, but she's also worked and practiced insanely hard over the years to hone that talent into something worth looking at.

Raw talent is a block of stone, a blank piece of paper, or a lump of unformed clay. It doesn't matter the quality of the material, either . . . with enough skill, you can make the smallest amount into a masterpiece.

Genesis_13 · Post by **Genesis_13** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 2:20 pm

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.

That's cause we threw away all of our old, horrible stuff. I didn't want to look at mine anymore....*shudder*

RPin · Post by **RPin** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 2:32 pm

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.

Wp · Post by Wp » Sun Dec 05, 2004 2:59 pm

My belief in natural ability having to do with artistic skill does not come from anything you might be thinking. I am not implying that I can't become a good artist or that I'm blaming my inadequacies on my body and brain. In addition, this isn't an argument about genes vs environment. It is about physical/mental ability (which includes both environment and genes) vs practice/hard work.

My point is that some people have ability (again, both genes and environment) and some don't have as good an ability. And you can never ignore time. 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.

Mr.Bob · Post by **Mr.Bob** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:04 pm

collapse wrote:I want to see someone who started out as badly as I draw and improved tremendously.

Phalanx · Post by **Phalanx** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:06 pm

I've seen too much to not believe that talents exists.

But talent alone is not a pre-requisite. It makes it easier to learn a skill and create something with it, yes, but you can learn the same skill, albeit slower, without it.

Like someone already mentioned: some people are born with natural abilities, and there are those who aren't but learn to do it. And as godoftarot pointed out, it seems that the latter group frequently have more discipline and persistence than the former, due to having to work harder to gain the same skills.

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.

Oh, and if you really want really extreme art comparisons:

Both of them were by me.

I think the former was done when I was in Form 2. (that's about 8th grade, I think). Around 14?

The latter was done about a month ago. (For reference, I'll be 21 in approximately one week)

TheLoserHero · Post by **TheLoserHero** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:09 pm

@Bob-- Holy cow. O_o

@Ping-- Holy cow. o_O

p.s. (in a sing-song voice) I'm older than Piiing, I'm older than Piiing, I'm older than Piiing. Wheeeeeee.

p.p.s. Advanced Happy Birthdaaaaaaay!