I was having a great time reading all the replys to the talent sub-thread in pabmove's post on AnimeStudio.
Some interesting insights into the human motivation to create.
Here is some thing to stir up the stew,
Is there a personality type (as some say) or just learned response?
(in the sense of a chimp given brushes and paints)
Discussion of talent hijacked from pabmove's post
Moderators: Víctor Paredes, Belgarath, slowtiger
Discussion of talent hijacked from pabmove's post
You'll know when you get there! My Dad
I taught art and design for a number of years, and even trained art graduates to teach art and design, so I am very familiar with the "everyone has artistic talent" point of view. My response to this became "Everyone can be taught to pass an art exam". But if anyone has the potential to draw and paint like Picasso, how come there's only one Picasso? It can't all be a conspiracy of art dealers. "Talent" has become a word loaded with unfortunate hierarchical connotations. No-one wants to say it -- in much the same way that no politician in the states wants to admit to being a "liberal". But it exists...
You can't have everything. Where would you put it?
@jahnocli: Self censorship because of political correctness (i.e. not wanting to possibly offend anyone in present or future) is killing all honest debate. Meaning if you can't say what you think, there is no real freedom of speech.
Concerning the subject of this thread: The problem is that many people (including myself often times) compare themselves to other people in a competitive way. This only can lead to two things if you meet other people: either they are less than you and you look down on them, or they are more than you and you look up to them. Either option stands in the way of developing deep human relationships, not based on prejudice ("I'm better than you!"), but rather based on respect for the other person's accomplishments and ideas.
IOW it is easy to dismiss someone as unimportant; it is very hard to see why someone is a valuable human being.
The same is true for art. If someone is not able to sell his art, because there is no market for it, does it mean the message (or image) the creator is trying to convey is worthless? There are always going to be people who like this non-commercial artwork, because it shows real feelings and attention to detail.
No, not everyone can be a commercial artist, but everyone can express him- or herself as a human being in imagery, just as they can by other means. It is this expression that is important, because it tells something about the human being that has uttered it.
At least, if you're open to these kinds of things, want to know something about the world around you, and are willing to admit that your earlier conceptions need some re-adjusting.
Concerning the subject of this thread: The problem is that many people (including myself often times) compare themselves to other people in a competitive way. This only can lead to two things if you meet other people: either they are less than you and you look down on them, or they are more than you and you look up to them. Either option stands in the way of developing deep human relationships, not based on prejudice ("I'm better than you!"), but rather based on respect for the other person's accomplishments and ideas.
IOW it is easy to dismiss someone as unimportant; it is very hard to see why someone is a valuable human being.
The same is true for art. If someone is not able to sell his art, because there is no market for it, does it mean the message (or image) the creator is trying to convey is worthless? There are always going to be people who like this non-commercial artwork, because it shows real feelings and attention to detail.
No, not everyone can be a commercial artist, but everyone can express him- or herself as a human being in imagery, just as they can by other means. It is this expression that is important, because it tells something about the human being that has uttered it.
At least, if you're open to these kinds of things, want to know something about the world around you, and are willing to admit that your earlier conceptions need some re-adjusting.
Communication is only part of the picture, I think. Expression is more than conveying information. It also has an inherent self value. It tells something about the individual, without him or her trying to do that with intent. I sometime compare it with walking. If you know someone well, you can see from his or her walk who it is, without having seen his or her face. An artwork tells something about who someone is and what (s)he is trying to tell.
You cannot part the message from the messenger.
You cannot part the message from the messenger.
Well, without reintroducing all my mumbo jumbo regarding neural pathways from pabmove's thread, I'll say I believe that anyone can be an artist -art is, after all, communication and that is an essential part of the human experience. I do think that certain people may be born, or develop from life experience, certain connections that will result in a new and unique artistic voice.
I think that people who are predominately left-brained types may not have a natural interest or ease for developing or exploring right brain functioning -at least not enough interest to do the extra work required. Nevertheless there have been studies and anectotal evidence that it is possible -look at popular phenomenons like "Drawing with the Right Side of the Brain" or the "Suzuki Method" for music.
Just to touch on one thing I mentioned in the other thread regarding 'mirror neurons.' They found that these mirror neurons fired both when someone performs an action or when observing the same action by someone else. In other words by really watching someone perform an action our brains react in the same way as if we actually were doing it. There is more to the artistic vision that just the mechanics of art, but the mechanics are part of it and maybe even the part that left brained types are most apt to logically decipher. After that practice, reading, exploration and so on can open new pathways into the creative mind.
I think that if you have the strong will and desire to explore art as a means of expression you can be a Picasso. It may take work and your genius may not be recognized until after your dead, but hey you'll be in good company in that regard.
I think that people who are predominately left-brained types may not have a natural interest or ease for developing or exploring right brain functioning -at least not enough interest to do the extra work required. Nevertheless there have been studies and anectotal evidence that it is possible -look at popular phenomenons like "Drawing with the Right Side of the Brain" or the "Suzuki Method" for music.
Just to touch on one thing I mentioned in the other thread regarding 'mirror neurons.' They found that these mirror neurons fired both when someone performs an action or when observing the same action by someone else. In other words by really watching someone perform an action our brains react in the same way as if we actually were doing it. There is more to the artistic vision that just the mechanics of art, but the mechanics are part of it and maybe even the part that left brained types are most apt to logically decipher. After that practice, reading, exploration and so on can open new pathways into the creative mind.
I think that if you have the strong will and desire to explore art as a means of expression you can be a Picasso. It may take work and your genius may not be recognized until after your dead, but hey you'll be in good company in that regard.
Last edited by bupaje on Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[url=http://burtabreu.animationblogspot.com:2gityfdw]My AnimationBlogSpot[/url:2gityfdw]
I suppose there is some need for a separation of terminology when considering "talent" with the addition of artists like Picasso. There is clearly a separation between when that which we call art is a gift of expression versus a collection of motor skills. When I made my previous statements on talent I perhaps nto taking into account the difference between works of Picasso and "Learning to draw comics the Marvel way."
It's true there is only one Picasso or one Beethoven, but was it talent that brougt about the works of these men, or was it something else. Vision, emotion, trauma, life experience, relationships? Is it possible there are those with equal skill with the brush or on the piano, but are lacking something else and thus have not created works to be equally remembered?
Is it possible that a person has great skill to paint, such that if you asked them to copy any master work they could do so perfectly, but at the same time they, of themselves, have nothing to say or express? What, then, does that make of their talent?
It's true there is only one Picasso or one Beethoven, but was it talent that brougt about the works of these men, or was it something else. Vision, emotion, trauma, life experience, relationships? Is it possible there are those with equal skill with the brush or on the piano, but are lacking something else and thus have not created works to be equally remembered?
Is it possible that a person has great skill to paint, such that if you asked them to copy any master work they could do so perfectly, but at the same time they, of themselves, have nothing to say or express? What, then, does that make of their talent?
----
Terrence Walker
Studio ArtFX
LEARN HOW TO Make YOur Own Animated Film!
Get Video Training to Show You How!
Terrence Walker
Studio ArtFX
LEARN HOW TO Make YOur Own Animated Film!
Get Video Training to Show You How!
@artfx - I agree with you. Communication and expression are filtered through our training and life experiences. I've heard plenty of singers who weren't technically as gifted as others but whose voices have more soul in them because of the circumstances of their life.
However if this same 'mechanically talented' individual were to open themselves up to new experiences, evaluate their thinking and their accepted view of the world, I think they could add 'genius' to their work. The question of course, is would they even feel the desire to do so, or be able to question, or even notice, the lack in their work. I think the journey would begin with a recognition that a journey is needed. Without that, even if there is a potential way to acquire this 'vision' they may never do so.
However if this same 'mechanically talented' individual were to open themselves up to new experiences, evaluate their thinking and their accepted view of the world, I think they could add 'genius' to their work. The question of course, is would they even feel the desire to do so, or be able to question, or even notice, the lack in their work. I think the journey would begin with a recognition that a journey is needed. Without that, even if there is a potential way to acquire this 'vision' they may never do so.
[url=http://burtabreu.animationblogspot.com:2gityfdw]My AnimationBlogSpot[/url:2gityfdw]
Surely everyone has talent. Talent at one thing or another. And i think if we all ran around screaming we had talent it would loose all meaning. 'Oooh look at me i'm soo talanted at making ice tea' 'ooooh look at me i'm soo talented at making toast.'
My 2 lil pennies: being talented is being human.
I must be off topic here...
My 2 lil pennies: being talented is being human.
I must be off topic here...
--Scott
cribble.net
cribble.net
There is other interesting aspect of this discussion.
Usually people says: "Nobody is born knowing". So with or without talent, every one have to run its own "carreer". I can have talent for something but if I don't develop it perhaps never discover it at all.
It is natural that here we compare us each others. it is human nature, And at the end it is the envy what is working. But usually, people who compares with others don't take in mind that some people are at the end of their carreers and other at the begining. Even learning curve (or the hability of explode its "talent") of someone could be quite different from others. I think that a quick learning curve can be called "innate skills".
So not only talent must be considered. Also its development. If someone have much talent, starts its development very early and have a very quick lerning curve, it should be a genious.
Imagine a person like Mozart. I cannot compare him to Bono for example. Mozar could have "less" talent than Bono but the reason for its succsess could be that his father exploited its habilities very early. Its dedication to music was its life. The production was tremendous. But did he have more "talent"? I don't know.
Other second aspect is training. I'm a medium chess player. I learned to play chess when I was a child (my father teached me). Even I won a prize in school competition... Through the years I forgot the chess (other life obligations) and I recover it two years ago. I needed 3 months to reach my top playing level. Now I turned to drawing /animation. I started three months ago and let apart the chess (I have no much free time so only one hobbie at a time is permitted). Yesterday I played chess again. I have lost 6 months or more of chess skills.
In my family I have drawing talent. My father studied painting in Barcelona with a rather famous artist from that time. My sister have drawing (and otrhe artist skills) but they have not been developed. My brother is now painting (started 5 years ago - he is 47) and is demostrating its habilities.
I faced a serious pencil drawing test two weeks ago. I get a big surprise because the result was very glad. Also I recognize the errors that I did in the drawing so I can try to correct them next time. Let me show you my trial.
I was confused because I tried to do things that I don't have the talent. I always tried to draw from scratch and using only my imagination. I have no talent on this. It is very difficult to me imagine and then draw it. I have habilities to copy. Perhaps I have habilities to pencil drawing. So I have to explode my habilities. Do I draw better than you? I don't know. But what ever you do, do it with your heart.
At the end "nobody is born knowing".
Usually people says: "Nobody is born knowing". So with or without talent, every one have to run its own "carreer". I can have talent for something but if I don't develop it perhaps never discover it at all.
It is natural that here we compare us each others. it is human nature, And at the end it is the envy what is working. But usually, people who compares with others don't take in mind that some people are at the end of their carreers and other at the begining. Even learning curve (or the hability of explode its "talent") of someone could be quite different from others. I think that a quick learning curve can be called "innate skills".
So not only talent must be considered. Also its development. If someone have much talent, starts its development very early and have a very quick lerning curve, it should be a genious.
Imagine a person like Mozart. I cannot compare him to Bono for example. Mozar could have "less" talent than Bono but the reason for its succsess could be that his father exploited its habilities very early. Its dedication to music was its life. The production was tremendous. But did he have more "talent"? I don't know.
Other second aspect is training. I'm a medium chess player. I learned to play chess when I was a child (my father teached me). Even I won a prize in school competition... Through the years I forgot the chess (other life obligations) and I recover it two years ago. I needed 3 months to reach my top playing level. Now I turned to drawing /animation. I started three months ago and let apart the chess (I have no much free time so only one hobbie at a time is permitted). Yesterday I played chess again. I have lost 6 months or more of chess skills.
In my family I have drawing talent. My father studied painting in Barcelona with a rather famous artist from that time. My sister have drawing (and otrhe artist skills) but they have not been developed. My brother is now painting (started 5 years ago - he is 47) and is demostrating its habilities.
I faced a serious pencil drawing test two weeks ago. I get a big surprise because the result was very glad. Also I recognize the errors that I did in the drawing so I can try to correct them next time. Let me show you my trial.
I was confused because I tried to do things that I don't have the talent. I always tried to draw from scratch and using only my imagination. I have no talent on this. It is very difficult to me imagine and then draw it. I have habilities to copy. Perhaps I have habilities to pencil drawing. So I have to explode my habilities. Do I draw better than you? I don't know. But what ever you do, do it with your heart.
At the end "nobody is born knowing".
When I was actively teaching in the public schools I longed for the days of university where one could talk "art" without the practicle or pedestrian.
I think the internet has provided that for me. In particular this forum but there are others as well. You know the ole clubhouse effect.But on a global scale! I marvel at that aspect of communication.
Genete, "It is natural that here we compare us each others. it is human nature"--- I couldn't agree with you more!
I think the internet has provided that for me. In particular this forum but there are others as well. You know the ole clubhouse effect.But on a global scale! I marvel at that aspect of communication.
Genete, "It is natural that here we compare us each others. it is human nature"--- I couldn't agree with you more!
You'll know when you get there! My Dad
Well yeah, you've got to be good at having no talent! Jezz...Rasheed wrote:So if everyone has talent, having no talent is a talent as well
Talent is a crap word. My ever-changing-opinion is that the word talent is a word used by peers to describes someones skills.
--Scott
cribble.net
cribble.net