Talent... a lie?

[Chris Bennett]

So, Chris, if "aptitude" is the springboard for talent, isn't it the bedrock for developing skills? Perhaps without "aptitude" talent simply wouldn't exist.... which just might make aptitude more important than talent. Maybe it's the skeleton that prevents an artist of any description resembling a jellyfish when they practise their skills

That's exactly it.
Except for one thing. Your question of relative importance and how the existence of talent might depend on aptitude.

You've practically answered this question anyway in your skeleton analogy.

Aptitude is like a bridge. And there are as many bridges as there are skills. Without the bridge the spirit can't get across and become a body; the 'talent' can't become a realised language.

The spirit without a body is nothing. The bridge with no one to cross it is just so much dead wood.
They need each other.

[Chris Bennett]

So 'talent', or 'species of intelligence', is formless, possesses no face, no body. Yet it is vital. A vitality of meaningful possibility.

It is not drawing or playing the piano or telling jokes or writing books or directing films or managing men...
Those are aptitudes. Those are the bridges.

What begins its journey across comes from the same land. Always. It is only after crossing that it takes on a form. And that form depends on the bridge. Not that which crossed it.

[Pringlesniffer]

Not sure where I stand on this but I have a story to share like many others in this thread.

When I attended art college very few of the teachers took the time to explain in detail what they were trying to explain to the class. Most of the time they simply ignored me and answered questions from the people next to me. When they walked around our desk they always looked the other way with my work, because I needed more help then the other students.

Eventually the teachers took me aside and said that I didn't have the genes to do anything art related and that's the reason why they never bothered to answer my questions during class. At the end of the year I had to put all of my effort into trying to bring up my Art History and Writing & Lit because I spent to much time with my art assignments, when I took the time to study the other two subjects my art classes dropped one, two letter grades and I couldn't pass.

At the end of the year and when I was packing up one of those same teachers who said I didn't have the genes advised me to try and go to a regular college and see if I couldn't find something else to do.

For the past two years now I've been lurking ConceptArt.org and plenty of other sites in order to teach myself how to "art" and I still don't know what I'm doing but I've learned a whole lot more then what I did at that college.

Maybe I don't have the genes but it sure as hell not going to stop me from enjoying something I like to do and would like to make it a career out of it.

[alesoun]

This http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...-just-mad.html was in the paper this weekend. Not a definition, just a poignant story (I think anyway).

So much in life is subjective...

[kev ferrara]

Art is the language of graphic concepts.

Everyone in the world who can see is able to read this language, because as we live in the world, we learn to understand our surroundings by the selfsame graphic understandings that are found in art. But this learning process is unconscious for most.

Few are sensitive enough to perceive the language by which we understand the visual presence of the natural world as a language. And even fewer naturally "take" to that natural language and learn to "write" with it. Even fewer than that become fluent in its vocabulary, speaking it with ease. And of those in the last batch, only a handful become poets of the form.

Alas.

The words we choose to use to describe all this are not important. Thus talent will do fine.

[Flashback]

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...1794/index.htm

Tip sheet the article gives:
1. Approach each critical task with an explicit goal of getting much better at it.
2. As you do the task, focus on what's happening and why you're doing it the way you are.
3. After the task, get feedback on your performance from multiple sources. Make changes in your behavior as necessary.
4. Continually build mental models of your situation - your industry, your company, your career. Enlarge the models to encompass more factors.
5. Do those steps regularly, not sporadically. Occasional practice does not work.

[Amarok]

I just don't think about talent because it would be futile. I know that I don't have even the smallest scrap of it (if possible, I would have a negative amount), so thinking about talent and how much faster other people can improve compared to me only gets me depressed and makes me feel like I'm destined for failure. When I do think about it, I try to think about how rewarding it will be for me when I finally struggle through and break past mediocrity and become a good artist, and how much more it will mean to me than to someone who had improvement come easily. I would love to be talented, but I'm not, so all I can do is give it my best knowing that when I finally succeed, my success will be more hard-won and more meaningful than it ever would be if I had talent.

[Sanjo]

I agree with crossmirage ... If someone told me I was talented, I would kind of see that as an insult, since it neglects the fact that I simply draw->work a lot.

Of course I would be kind enough not to respond with anything cocky, but I would think "yeah... of course, it just fell into my hands..."

I do believe something like talent exists, but no one manages to reach a certain level with talent only (well maybe except that autism dude who draws cityscapes after flying over them in a helicopter... can we call that talent?). Most of it is pure dedication and love for what you do and lots of hard work.

[AboutaDirk]

tal·ent

noun /ˈtalənt/ 
talents, plural

- Natural aptitude or skill
* - he possesses more talent than any other player
* - she displayed a talent for garden design

Natural aptitude. There are people who are inherently better at stuff than others. Now you can argue over "natural aptitude" all you want (where the aptitude comes from, if you're born with it or just pick it up along the way) the fact of the matter is that some people "get" certain things, skills, easier than others.

Don't think that's at all arguable?

[cloudcan]

Obviously everyone agrees that talent is NOT some magical gift heaven drops in your laps and suddenly you are able to do awesome art. But I'd say talent is more of a natural inborn potential, the good ideas you have in your head and the longing in your heart to make art, and not just any art but good art. All artists have this to some extent, that's why they became artists in the first place .. some give up easily, some only keep to a hobby, and some I guess go crazy with it and forget to shower for months. But you have to admit, artists have something that ordinary people do not have. whether it be 'having an eye' for things or just a pure love for art. Are you born with 'talent' or is it the amount of work you put in? is there a difference between talent and aptitude? to me it does not matter, they're merely words and labels. You're here now as you are, just do what you love to do.

[Chris Bennett]

It's important to distinguish only in so far as it helps us to answer people's qustions and be clear what we are talking about.

Saying to someone, "I really don't think you're cut out to do this" needs to be precise in what we are referring to so that feelings are not unecessarily hurt.
I distinguish between talent and aptitude in order to define what I mean by a 'species of intelligence' that transduces into different genres of artistic expression depnding on the individual.
Unfortunately we do not have a word for that. So 'talent' has to do.

[Magyar]

I personally think talent is a lot rarer then people think. It does exist, in my opinion.

Take Pablo Picasso, aged around 16 he applied for an art school in Barcelona and was turned down because there was nothing they could teach him he had talent to observe what he saw and re create it in his own methods and style.

Now talent doesn't mean that you will become something. I have a little talent, being able to sketch things fairly decently, but if I don't work nothing will become of me. Same goes to any artist or musician etc.

Also I think that those who succeed in the art world particularly are those who are inspired and create something totally unique - their own style. Those that do that have managed to see something and draw or paint or w/e onto paper and create something that no one has seen in the way they have.

Thats my opinion but idk how much it means. u.u

[Kamber Parrk]

Talent takes on a more grim and edgy dimension when yer "playin' for keeps" as in the abilities of swordsmen like Miyamoto Musashi, fighter pilots like Joe Foss, or gunfighters like Jelly Bryce:

http://www.gutterfighting.org/jellybryce.html

[Lithriel]

Talent seems to be the magic word people come up with then they spot inequalities with people's abilities. No, we aren't going to be equal in our artistic skills. Even those assigned the word "talented" must work to create art like anyone else and like anything else the time it takes us to get to a certain level varies.

[Kamber Parrk]

. . . .like anyone else and like anything else the time it takes us to get to a certain level varies.

But, eventually, you have to stand and deliver. That's what's brutally honest about talent in relation to the "martial arts"-- in feudal Japan, aerial combat over Guadalcanal, or the dusty streets of Oklahoma circa 1930s, the more "talented" warrior gets to walk or fly away alive.

The less talented man gets to rest, inert, in a puddle of his own blood or as a crispy critter in a burning plunging aircraft-- no do-overs, no second place "winners," no whining about "it's my style. . ."

[2.3J]

Talent is only 10%, the rest is hard work. And it applies to all disciplines

[bcarman]

Is 10% a proven scientific result? )

[kev ferrara]

Here's the actual breakdown from the study, Bill...

Talent: 10%
Hard Work: 32%
Fish Oil Supplements: 7%
The Lord: 4.2%
Photoshop Filters: 23.8%
Luck, Fate, Alcohol: 13%
The Scientific Method: 8%
Advice from Mother: 2%
That Little Something Extra: 20%

[Aly Fell]

I think that study is possibly flawed, They can't even get their maths right.

[bcarman]

No wonder i suck. The Lord thing is a problem.

[Kamber Parrk]

No wonder i suck. The Lord thing is a problem.

Well, actually, The Lord is 'sposed to take care of "drunks, fools, and little children."

Thus, I think The Almighty should, probably, get credit for the 13% covered in "Luck, Fate, Alcohol."

Dang it Kev, you also excluded the "error margins!"

[Twan]

Many people aren't good at mathematics for instance. As far as I'm concerned, I think math is the easiest subject you can find. I never study for a test, most of the time I don't do my homework and yet I got the maximal grade at my final test. Some people who worked hard failed and I felt kinda bad for them. I don't have any talent for math, I just think smart. For example, our teacher gave us once about 20 formulas to learn. Most people learned them by heart whereas I learned only 3 formulas since I could find back all the other one with the 3 basics formulas.People don't try to understand the formulas, why is it that way, how does it work and this is why they fail.
My point is talent doesn't exist, they are just people who think smarter. For some people it's obvious to do so whereas others find it tedious to do it. One should strive to think smarter. Thinking smart is freaking painful but it's way less time-consuming.

[kev ferrara]

It seems people didn't get the joke that, if you give "that little something extra" it is called, "giving one hundred and twenty percent."

You damn people... that joke adds up!

[bcarman]

Ayup.

[Lawrence Humphrey]

Pringlesniffer, the reaction of your art teachers reminds me of the highschool student who told his English teacher that he (the student) wanted to be a writer.

The teacher said "Forget it! John, you're never going to be a writer, just forget it."

Well, John Skipp is not exactly William Shakespeare but he's sure sold a lot of books and made millions of dollars.

There's something marvelous, magical, mysterious, about the work "talent." What about just demoting it to "the knack"?

Did Vincent van Gogh have talent? I'd say no. What about Lucian Freud? No. They both had the desire to paint, and determination.

And don't forget that old saying about "The forest would be a silent place if......" etc.

[MightyApplejacks]

This topic still plagues me, so I thought I'd bring it up again.

Practice is sort of like digging into a mountain. If the mountain contains gold or some valuable mineral, the digging will be rewarding. If the mountain is just a heap of rock and mud, no amount of digging will get the prospector any closer to riches.

Lol. Personally, I don't think that metaphor is accurate- not to mention everything I hate about the word 'talent'. Why dig into something when you're supposed to be building on it? Isn't a more appropriate way - say, 'finding the most stable ground' (for ex. method) on which to start building your skills?
Or y'know, digging into the right spot vs digging with a blindfold on ;D

Some find it harder than others, that is true. But those who find it hard can also 'amp up' the process if their thinking changes over time -this is absolutely true of intelligence, after all. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...bout-iq/22260/
It's this 'absolute' attitude towards talent that makes people think that that can't happen for skills. Intelligence can inform skills, can it not? That's only common sense, because what's intelligence if you can't build skill comprehension?

Also, I heavily contest the 'you can work all you like at something if you're not talented but you'll never get as far' maxim. Why do we have to think of talent this way? If anything, it's just a 'head start' and shouldn't really inform the rest of the individuals independent-thinking and productive life should it? Why on earth should we think it would?

You think maybe the people we've in the past dismissed as 'untalented' are oftentimes just going around in circles due to poor, rigid way of thinking/observing/analysing? Once that thinking is corrected, they can go to whatever heights they please in a certain area. They can 'get it' more easily than they did before. They don't 'need' to be talented.

For example, the Accelerator courses for learning languages. They strip it down to basics progression in order to get it to 'sink in' more, in order to focus on patterns that actually work- that imprint to you and have you actually understand the inner workings of a language piece by piece, exactly the way they've NEVER done it in school.
I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that the brain can do the same with just about any subject, be they 'talented' or not.

The secret is to find the 'patterns' that work for us. Basically, what Twan said about thinking smart. The way you think can make all the difference on how you inform your skill growth, and I don't think that's taken into account enough.

[Black Spot]

I'm going to use the analogy of singing. I can't hold a tune, I can hit a note when played, so I'm not tone deaf. I've realised the reason why I can't sing is because I never learned to really listen to myself. This could be fixed (and I would really like to do it one day), but then there is that other bit - the sound of my voice. While I can hit a note, it doesn't have anything special to it that makes it apart from the crowd. You know when you turn the radio on and a song that you've never heard comes on and yet you still recognise the singer? That's the difference. There are many singers who do very well, but there are a lot fewer you recognise by them just opening their mouths. Sometimes, that sound isn't that great, but it's those subtle differences that make it special.

[Izi]

The efficiency of the École des Beaux-Arts and specifically the Académie des Beaux-Arts proved that anyone can be taught how to draw and paint extremely effectively, and also have them exceed many potentially talented, yet inefficiently self-taught artist in technical proficiency, whether one is 5 or 80.

You can see this in effect at any number of European Academic ateliers in the world.

However, the Prix de Rome proved that some artists really are better at what they do than others - being given all tools to maximize their talent.

Some people are smarter than others, it's just the way nature works. There are not enough artists in the world, so it doesn't really matter if you're not 'the best', i.e. nature itself. Anyone who says we have enough artists is a self-serving malevolent moron.

[OmenSpirits]

The efficiency of the École des Beaux-Arts and specifically the Académie des Beaux-Arts proved that anyone can be taught how to draw and paint extremely effectively, and also have them exceed many potentially talented, yet inefficiently self-taught artist in technical proficiency, whether one is 5 or 80.

You can see this in effect at any number of European Academic ateliers in the world.

However, the Prix de Rome proved that some artists really are better at what they do than others - being given all tools to maximize their talent.

Some people are smarter than others, it's just the way nature works. There are not enough artists in the world, so it doesn't really matter if you're not 'the best', i.e. nature itself. Anyone who says we have enough artists is a self-serving malevolent moron.

....but the REAL question is...


Do we have enough POLITICIANS?

hmm...

[Elwell]

This topic still plagues me,

Why?