Is a talent for art natural or learnable?

[biscuitninja]

My skillset is slighly different. Since i'm a engineer, it boils down to thinking, abstract problems, how can you see problems from a different direction.

Some people see it differently than you do, but they both satisify the problem.... What really sets the people apart is that they catch onto concepts quickly and can apply them without any issues or though. The rest of us... well we have to work a little harder to understand.

I have taught math for a few years and have a semi-unique ability to see the solution and work backwards to the question. Not alot of people have this and they think i'm a super smart... not really its just my brain operates differently, they have some talents I could not even begin to match...(like all you super Artistic people... dammit, I have to work HARD at it! (*grumble grumble*) ha ha

-bix

[lukey120292]

It also makes me angry when people complain about the low pay artists or, concept artists receive.

Somebody who is doing art for money only should not be in the art industry
having a job as a successful artist with plenty of compliments and enough money for a house and my family would make me happier than any millionaire who won the lottery and is talentless.

Art is what makes me happy and ever since i touched that paper with my pencil i have continued to learn, create and draw. nothing makes me happier

[Kfeeras]

I think if you have the passion, determination and discipline to keep working on it, you'll be fine, you won't starve. If you really want it.

Maybe you need that extra "talent" (god i HATE this word) to become famous. I don't know a lot of famous concept artists, let's say h.r. giger, who are known to people who aren't in the niche. So getting famous shouldn't be the aim.

So.... do really not waste your thoughts on talent, and finish those colorstudies you left unfinished before you started browsing the forums.

cheers

[Qitsune]

It also makes me angry when people complain about the low pay artists or, concept artists receive.
...
Art is what makes me happy and ever since i touched that paper with my pencil i have continued to learn, create and draw. nothing makes me happier

That has to be one of the most ignorant things I have read on this site and I have been here a few years. Do skilled workers deserve less money because they enjoy what they do? Should your boss meet you every year and ask you if you have fun working and then lower your wage accordingly?

Art as a career requires hard work, rare skills, dedication and often a costly education. There is no reason an artist, be she a fine artist, illustrator, animator or sign painter should make any less money than a plumber, a cop or any other profession where the competition is less steep and the dedication required also way less.

Way back when (back in the apprenticeship days) painting, illustrating, sculpting was considered a craft, not an art and no one would have dreamed of paying painters any less than they would a carpenter or a stonemason.

Somebody who is doing art for money only should not be in the art industry having a job as a successful artist with plenty of compliments and enough money for a house and my family would make me happier than any millionaire who won the lottery and is talentless.

My answer to that is that someone who is doing art to have compliments should not be in the art industry. They should become hookers and leave artists and artisans the heck alone.

[sve]

As for me, everything goes: money, compliments, good feeling about yourself, psychotherapy, fame, wanting to try something new, ambitions, be better then some guy you used to know... all good.

Talent is a real thing IMO. I see confirmation of it on this site. I saw several people starting three years ago and how far they went and how natural talent affected the results and how hard work did. Natural talent is ability to notice things and have not trivial, interesting ideas. It is a lot about personality of the creator, opening yourself for a stranger to see and judge, giving taste of your soul.

Hard work is persistently following rules IMO.

[Costau D]

Reality can bite. Just bite back.

[Ilaekae]

Which would explain why some of the great cathedrals of Europe came crashing down a few times during construction...

You get what you pay for...

[Mikko K]

The biggest talent in my opinion is sticking to what you like doing.

Learn not only from your mistakes but other's mistakes too. Put in the effort and don't think you "don't have what it takes", since people develop differently. Van Gogh started painting in his 40's I think.

Don't only work hard, but work smart too - try to practice with clear goals so you don't end up re-inventing the wheel for a zillion times.

[arttorney]

Vincent van Gogh died at age 37. His painting career spanned 10 years. Somewhere in his late twenties his preaching career kind of reached a dead end and he picked up the brush.

[nonie]

Van Gogh did also work like, insanely hard. To the point of not eating and sleeping a lot. And if he'd lived longer I'm sure he would have only gotten better and better at painting.

I do believe that a certain affinity for one kind of thinking or another is inborn. The brain is incredibly complex and can indeed learn to be pretty good at something we put a lot of work into, but when the same amount of work is applied to something our brains are actually *physically* wired to be better at, we learn much more quickly.

If certain talents and skills weren't inborn, how would you explain dog breeding? People selectively bred some dogs that were relentless hunters and some that were good with kids and very affectionate. We end up with *vastly* different dogs who can indeed all learn to be work dogs or family dogs, but some need more training than others. How would you explain the process of breeding for temperament if personality and affinity for certain things wasn't hard-wired?

[Nibras]

Just read my sig...
If you want it you work for it, it's not something your just born with...

[cesmls]

I think that we are talking about 2 things here - a gift and a talent.

Some people are born with a gift.

For example, a woman can make quilts with absolutely spot-on colours - the colours she uses, where she places them in the quilt, etc.

Her colour sense is her "gift" - her making quilts is a "talent."

Does this make sense?

[Qitsune]

cesmls, I think what you call talent is what we call skill.
What you call a gift we call natural ability.

[cesmls]

Qitsune,

Thanks! I come from the fibre artists world. It's nice to have the relationship between the two different areas' language.

Christine

[Maridius]

I guess I'd better weigh in with this topic, seeing as I've seen it crop up before and not just here. Any discussion of talent is going to generate tons of anxiety because talent implies, or outright states, that there's a glass ceiling above you and not the open sky you thought lay wide and unlimited. It's a fucking scary thing. It spawns horrible ideas like 'what if there's only so far I can go with this and then, no matter how hard I try, I can't grow any further?' And if you think I've never had the same nightmarish thought from time to time, HA! I don't think a day goes by I wonder if I'll feel the top of my head brush against that glass--and that will be that. I'll simply wind up a fairly good draftsman but a mediocre concept artist.

Watching 'Amadeus' by the way, does NOT help. You got that poor court composer lamenting through the entire film that he has all the passion for music, but Mozart strolls up and blows him out of the water with little apparent effort. No matter how hard he tries, he can't be that good, that brilliant. Guys like that prove there is such a beast as talent. Robin Williams is unmatched at improv. No matter how hard I try, I could never think on the fly like that AND be funny at the same time. I don't have whatever he has that makes that possible and I don't mind one bit.

So where's my talent in art?

Here's the fun bit. I don't know. I've never known. Why? Cause I've never pushed what talent I have to its limit. I have no idea where this limit is so the intrigue for me is to play a game of 'how far can you go?' This doesn't totally erase the worry, but it helps keep me working and practicing, rather than dwelling on the 'talent' dilemma. I don't have to be the best in the world, just the best I personally can do.

So yeah, I think talent exists and some have more than others. Yeah that sucks.

But I have a larger ass than most too, which comes from my planting said ass in my chair and drawing, screwing up and trying again. My ass is very talented, in fact. The better I get at drawing, the wider it spreads. One day you'll see me at a life drawing meetup and will recognize me instantly. I'll have the killer sketches AND the Texas-sized rump to display proudly for anyone who wants a look.

[GNL]

It's probably biological, or perhaps something created/nurtured in the formative years... I am not sure.

I do believe that a certain affinity for one kind of thinking or another is inborn. The brain is incredibly complex and can indeed learn to be pretty good at something we put a lot of work into, but when the same amount of work is applied to something our brains are actually *physically* wired to be better at, we learn much more quickly.

This is a good example. Its similar to athletes, some runners have a bigger lung capacity, and if you and them train to the exact same level, they will beat you - and theres nothing you can do about it. Its a physical issue.

Its pretty obvious that there are people who are "talented" and "gifted" - they are all over the place, not just in Art.

[CatConvention]

well like i've said before.
Just like a person thats tonedeaf and has a crappy voice they have a really small chance to improve.

Some people just can't draw they can practice and gain some basics but in the end they can only go so far.

But no matter what, do it if you love it.
It doesn't matter if you think your born with talent or not.

[squidmonk3j]

basic personal summary:

of all the activities i've partaken in, drawing pleases me the most.

i have no sense of having any talent for drawing whatsoever.

i have found that i have an innate ability to focus my willpower and to dedicate myself 100% to a given task. i am not easily bored and my mind doesn't wander unless i want it to.

so i draw.

[Reign]

That's an interesting topic.
There is a lot of wisdom in this thread, and I think it's not contradictory.

But first things first. Let's at least pretend that we are here to answer the OP's question, and not to force our self-esteem-improving visions of reality, ok?

So, lukey120292, as for your question:

"Is a talent for art natural or learnable?"

The answer is definitly, undoubtedly, most certainly: natural...
But that's just because it's a wrongly stated question. The word "talent" by it's very definition means "natural ability". A better question would be :

"Is the ability to draw well commonly avaible to everybody, or does it require some unique qualities in the people trying to do this?"

And the answer to this question to my knowledge is "Yes it does need some unique qualities, but the truth behind this statement is so complex, that not elaborating on it is almost like lying."

There are some people who - with equal amount of work - have better results than others. But (!) we don't always know why somebody is excelling, and why somebody sucks. Always assuming that the difference lies in "talent" is... lazy.
Maybe somebody just has a poor-self esteem, which makes him unable to take constructive criticism and use it to learn to draw better.
Or maybe someone was never taught proper element of technique, which made him pick up some bad habits, and now, when he sees other people work (properly taught), he thinks he doesn't have a "talent"?
Or maybe someone just isn't as motivated as you to get it right?

I'm not trying to say that there are no inborn abilities helpful with drawing and learning to draw. I'm just saying, that "talent" is an easy word, sometimes overused, and may be harmful if we label someone as "talentless" while his/her shortcomings might have been of different - changeable - nature.

Also we don't actually know what a "talent" would be (unless here is someone who knows).
We agree that there is no "drawing gene". The idea of one would be silly. Even simple qualities of people are decided by many different genes, and their combinations, and still the final outcome is heavily influenced by environment (had a "gene talent" for languages? If you were not exposed to human speech while a child - you will strugle to learn even basics of *one* language as an adult. tough luck)

And drawing, or art for that matter is not a simple quality. Art is complex and subjective. Complex - meaning - you need a lot of different skills and abilities to be good at it - copying easily what you see onto paper is a nifty trick - but it won't mean much alone. Complexity makes art hard, but it also gives a chance to people who possess different talents. This idea was mentioned by Farvus and biscuitninja already, but I think it needs repeating - there are many skills and abilities that one can use to his advantage in creative buisness. One can be better at drawing realisticly, another can have a great grasp on the symbolic, or narrative - telling a story in one picture, or one can be great professional who works well in a teamwork.
Instead of wondering "Oh god, do I have the Talent?!", it's much better, imho, to try to realise your strengths, and play to them, and realise your weaknesses, and overcome them if you need it to improve.
There is a big difference between dogs and people. People are a lot better at compensating, improvising, finding another way around the obstacle - sometimes (but don't count on it) that way they can stumble upon something different, smart, innovative; something their more gifted competitors would not find because their road is too straight and easy.
Also the complexity of art means that it's not always "how good you are at it", but "which part of it suits you best".

I will just quote arttorney for that, because I think he nailed it just right:

Rather than "big" or "small" voice, I might try to talk about directions.

Larry Walker desperately wanted to be a hockey goalie. A coach, who saw he had talent but might be slightly misdirecting it, was honest that he would never make the big leagues in hockey and should try another sport. He went on to win a National League batting title in baseball.

[...] Art money can be made in patent drawings of machine parts. Art money can be made in assemblage pieces composed of found objects (See George Herms). Art money can be made in Sunday paper cartoons. Your brother may just need to see which key he sings best in. That's one of the cool things about practicing different media and styles for a while before settling into a fixed idea of what key and genre you sing in. The horrible thing about talent is that it doesn't come with an instruction manual.

Also art - unlike golf - is subjective. In golf everybody can agree if a ball is in or out. Not so easy with art. So any comparison, who is actually more talented, is a bit tricky.


And to discuss if talent is neccessary, we must first put another question - "neccessary for what?". Neccessary to be a profesional in the field you have chosen? To earn money on it, live a good life, enjoy your work? I don't think you have to "talent" for that. I think (I might be wrong) that no obvious handicap and a lot of hard work and passion will suffice.
I might be short, and not particulary athletic, but if I wanted to spend my life beating shit out of people, be successful at it, and earn money on it - I can do it. I don't have to be a UFC Champion. I just need a lot of passion and hard work - in this case meaning going to gym, eating a lot, learning fighting styles, training my psyche for combat, and I'm pretty sure I could be quite competent and happy bouncer if I wanted it.
If talent is what distinguishes Tiger Woods fom Nick Faldo, then I would gladly become "talentless Faldo" of art. Come on, maybe the guy is not the best, but he is accomplished, succesful, probaly happy with what he does.
Do you need "Talent", to draw and make money from it? I don't think so.

Do you need Talent (with capital T) to be THE BEST? Probably, but I doubt if talent alone (or even talent paired with hard work) will suffice. And anyway being "the best" is not my dream (not anymore), and I'm happy with it.

If you absolutely need to be the best, or otherwise what youre doing would not have any value to you - then IMO instead of wondering about talent, it would be better if you'd ask yourself some philosophical questions. Like the value of fame, importance of the moment, unavoidable end and death of everything.

Also I have a suspicion that wanting to be the next Rembrandt is not the right way to becoming one.

That is certainly not all that can or, not even all that should be said on the subject, but this post is long enough as it is. And I should be drawing instead of writing

Things to ponder:

I've read somewhere that Andrew Loomis' teacher once told him that he will never be a good artist. And maybe Loomis is not in art history books now, but he certainly was a great and accomplished profesional who influenced a lot of young illustrators that came after him.

There was an artist whose paintings were strangely stretched out vertically, which gave them a very interesting misterious aura. It certainly not the thing that made him great or famous, but it was a nice spice to delicious dish of his art. Was it an inborn gift? It seems so, most probably he had a bad eyesight

Not mentioning the guy, whose disturbing paintings may have something to do with his (suspected) schizofrenia.

Talking about natural gifts is a tricky buisness in a field, where a handicap can sometimes turn into an edge

[Wooly ESS]

I think this is a great discussion. There's a lot of insight being placed on the table here. I don't want to draw out the discussion unnecessarily, or seem repetitive, but I have to share a few more thoughts.

I do not believe I have any special ablities that I was born with. Anything I have learned to do well in my life has been a consequence of bloody hard, sustained work over a long period of time. Nothing has come particularily easy. If I can draw at all, it is because of reading, researching, study and just plain repetitive practice. Then, when I show a piece of work to someone, they coo and cluck about how "talented" I am. I find it slightly irritating as it discounts the years of blood, sweat and tears I put into getting to this place. Their comments sort of implies that this ability just fell from heaven and settled on my shoulders, with no effort from myself. Perhaps they feel it excuses them from not being able to do the same thing, whereas the reality is they just haven't put the work into it that I have.

On the other hand, why did I want to be an artist in the first place? That was a desire that just seemed to come out of thin air. The desire to be an artist did in fact fall from heaven and settle on my shoulders.

It's the old nature vs nuture argument. It may be a little of both.

[RoboBobo]

Great question, and through schooling I've encountered people with natural talent and taught skills. There is a big difference. Natural artists see things in a different light whether it's knowing if something looks wrong through observations, being able to spot their own mistakes, and seeing 3D images in their head of the world they want to paint. It's like a quarterback or a pitcher, your either good or you suck. Quarterbacks with coached talent(ehem John Kitna) will never be as good as a QB with natural talent (Carson Palmer, Brady, Manning). It's almost impossible to explain this difference until you watch a natural do art and someone that went to a 5 year design program and became a better sketcher(but didn't draw before schooling began). It's almost as if naturals start when they're 3 yrs old and "taught" artists start much later when they've suddenly found out they can draw a little. BUT, maybe that person who started late has some natural talent hidden in there and its up to schooling to bring it out. Touchy subject either way!

[J Wilson]

I think talent is overrated. If talent where a strong phenomenon then somebody 'talented' in art, who never picked up a pencil when they were young, could start to learn how to draw when they reached adulthood and find it easier than the average person. I don't believe that would be the case, I think the skills developed in youth lay the groundwork for what people call 'talent'.

I think that when most 'talented artists' were very young they were doodling and sketching while their brains were developing, and then as they grew they continued to draw constantly and where usually motivated by positive reinforcement from their peers and elders. The same with sport and music and any skill – while there are many physical and mental handicaps that might prevent a person from ever developing 'talent' – I believe the average person can achieve very high levels of skill if the right groundwork was laid.

So in my opinion, while talent doesn't exist in an innate sense, the important developmental stage in which skills are primed is usually before a conscious age, and it may be extremely difficult or impossible to remedy a deficit in this early training with focused study at a later age. Perhaps 'talent' is the predisposition to pick up the pencil at a young age in the first place, though that might just be parental influence or circumstance.

I have to disagree. I did not grow up with my father around, and so I had little to no way to know he was an artist as well. Yet there must have been some biological inclination towards art, because here I am, drawing and painting. So whether it's "talent" or merely an interest I do believe that it can be hardwired (but doesn't have to be, other factors can create that interest as well). What you DO with it most likely does boil down to drive though. I've known talented artists that never tried hard enough, and I've known less talented artists that worked their ass off. My potential out performed my dad's because I had the chance to see where it would go. There is no getting really good without a great deal of effort, but a little "talent" does make it easier to stick with.

[vivektheanimator]

to some extant it is true that the art is drawing is natural but only 10 percent in no way more than that. if u look history many persons have achieved in challanging circumstances so nothing is impossible. so just give up the idea that u cant be any artist if u are not born as artist, just believe in your self.

[JParrilla]

Some of these replies are worrying me to be honest Although I believe I have the potential to be really good, this idea of natural ability worries me. I tend to be a big dreamer, and art is something that I really want to be great at. I was under the impression that with enough hard work and determination even the worst artist could get really good.. So I figured since im not the worst artist to begin with, maybe I could get really great and achieve my dream. I never believed that you could be born with an ability, but after reading some opinions maybe its true... i sure hope not

[Flake]

Some of these replies are worrying me to be honest Although I believe I have the potential to be really good, this idea of natural ability worries me. I tend to be a big dreamer, and art is something that I really want to be great at. I was under the impression that with enough hard work and determination even the worst artist could get really good.. So I figured since im not the worst artist to begin with, maybe I could get really great and achieve my dream.

Get working then.

[Chris Bennett]

Talking about natural gifts is a tricky buisness in a field, where a handicap can sometimes turn into an edge

Cezanne and Van Gogh are perfect examples of this. Particularly Cezanne, who was forced to find a method to short circuit his inate clumsiness - had he gone on trying to emulate the dexterity and grace of Manet he would have died of a broken heart.
Whistler springs to mind too - he had no huge talent for illustration, by which I mean the unselfconscious invention of forms to tell stories. Instead he invented a technique that allowed him to speak of what most concerned his way of looking at the world and what interested him in it.
As you say, it's a complex thing and involves a whole raft of 'talents' in the form of focus, concentration, doggedness, lateral thinking, intellegence etc of which the ability to invent graphic equivalents for explaining a way of looking at form is just a part. (albeit a powerful one)

[Farvus]

By the way. Long time ago I was reading article about geniuses. I don't remember everything but the main thing in it was the theory that there are 2 types of them.

There are some who's great abilities appeared at very early age but with time it slowly burns out. Usually those people get most of the fame at but after they reach their maximum potential, it's later hard to cope with highly set bar.
The second type of geniuses are those who reach their most potential at very late age. They come up with ideas after years of work and experimentation and usually such talent lasts much longer beacause those type of people learned not to look back and it's all well grounded. They already know it's not easy for them so they never stop pushing it forward.

Don't know if you're genius? If not now then continue for 30 years and you might find out .

[OldJake666]

"What does it take to be an artist?"
"Being an artist isn't at all hard. Well yeah, you have to not want to do anything else but other than that art is really easy." - Andrew Jones

[JParrilla]

And you still might do this. Work, etc. Do you want to get good or genius? Newsflash: few of us can hit genius but we can all hit "worked hard".



That's tough, because natural ability exists. It's what separates talented hardworking enthusiasts from geniuses. Fortunately, they're rare. Chances are you'll never meet one.


What? that's like saying I can't believe anyone was ever born tall or good at swimming or genetically suited to boxing or good at running fast or good at jumping really far. stfu. Think about that guy you know who hears music once then sees it in his head as musical notes plotted on a graph. Can you do that?

Ok that makes sense.. But here's a question. Do you think that the majorit of the really great artists today especially in the video game, movie, etc industries are these artistic "geniuses", or are they just people who worked their asses off?

[Flake]

I'd say the vast majority had some predisposition towards it and they worked their asses off.

Some would have had to work harder than others.