Age-level-skill

[blog]

I was just wondering that a lot of tthe excellent artists are all quite old, like in their late 20's or early 30's. How come? Does this have something to do with their skill? I guess I admire artists like wes9000 and lungbug more just because of the skill they have attained at such an early age. How come there aren't enough of such young artists as those guys yet that are so talented?

What is your opinion?

[ArtbyWard]

Well some guys find out that they want to draw when they're like 40, and some when they're 5. And some people are just naturally talented, with others it takes some time. And Lung_Bug, I believe he drew like 12 hours a day on his peak so a lot of hard work also helps to get there sooner. Not everyone at that age has so much discipline.

But hey there are as many drawing paths as there are people.

[Marie]

...are all quite old, like in their late 20's or early 30's...

everyone is unique, including the rate at wich they mature, learn, rate at wich they gain wisdom. Unique in their drive, will, desire to move ahead, absorb new things. Everyone's different.

I'm not too keen on this whole linear way of viewing things, especially the part about being elderly in my mid thirties

[NoSeRider]

Syd Mead still kicks your butt, and he's in his 70's.

Keep in mind we don't have all the same experiences. I had to wait a little longer to learn to draw because the public school system screwed me up.
Public grade school system and your peers usually don't encourage art.

Frank Frazetta didn't start painting till he was 30.

[fukifino]

Frank Frazetta didn't start painting till he was 30.

Yeah, but he was drawing comics professionally in his teens.

And I resent being called old.

[luxun]

i think its weird its almost always young people that starts these age vs talent bla bla threads. in my oppinion age doesnt matter, its skill. of course its impressing if a young person does good art but his age doesnt make the better than if it was an older person.

[Elwell]

...quite old, like in their late 20's or early 30's.

That's "quite old?"


Shoot me. Shoot me now.

[Bowlin]

...quite old, like in their late 20's or early 30's.

Save a bullet for me too

[Drunken Monkey]

does it really matter?

yeah Mead is a good example... did you see his work from ACCD? Not that hot. But look at what he started doing when he was approaching 40, i believe that when he got into enterntainment.

Mullins also nobody heard of him until he was 30 or so.

I think many guys are just busy experiencing life, rather than turning into art-nerds. I mean, its your 20's... do you really want to spend it drawing 12 hours a day!? There are too many things to do. Too many beautiful girls, and friends who are free to have fun. Don't turn into art-nerd.

[HugeHarHar]

Take note that he's 14.

Old is a compartive way of thinking.

To him "quite old" is late 20's to mid 30's.

To the 4 year old behind him, he's quite old.

Personally, I don't think we hit old at a certian age, I think its more of a point in your life where you just don't work anymore. I know some kids in their 80's who are in better shape then I am. Heh, let him get through high school, I think then he'll figure out the whole age thing.

But I agree that age doesn't decide your skill.

[darth massacre]

I was just wondering that a lot of tthe excellent artists are all quite old, like in their late 20's or early 30's.

Hey!! Who are you calling old?!



Opinion?

I call it the 10 year rule. That is, if you do something with passion and hard work, and if you have SOME aptitude for it....only after about 10 years (varies from person to person, most don't need a full 10 years) you'll see enlightenment.

[GriNGo]

yeah, doest matter in which age you BEGIN.. it's the consistency and energy you give to the work that will make it kick ass... although if you start early, then much better! (you have more years in your life to draw then the others )

later,
GRiNGoLoCo

[Ilaekae]

Let me see if I have this right...

Really old is 20-30.

I'm going to be 60 in January.

Therefore I must be dead. Maybe I don't even exist. Or matter. If so, then it must be true of everyone like me...

Funny thing is...I don't feel dead. So...there must be something that's affecting my perception of my own worth...


Could it be...(?)

I was selling art and winning awards for creating art over 20 years before the geniuses I mentioned above were born, and that gives me at least some validity in calling myself a professional?

I know how to do everything these "20-30-year-old geniuses" will ever come up with...without the use of a computer and specialized technology to make life an easy coast to never-never land?

I have used materials and processes you have never even heard of, let alone used?

I understand, because of my background, why the software these "20-30-year-old geniuses" use does what it does...because I was there before it existed?

And one last point...I was able to understand where I stood against my peers professionally. Without technology. Without "age gauges." Without that subtle smile that told me that I really wasn't all that important anymore because I wasn't an "old genius of 20-30." I KNEW, in all caps, when someone was better than me. And I knew when I was better than him/her.



I'm having fun right now being snotty and sarcastic, and having some fun yanking all your chains...but...I'm starting my career over after 40+ years. That makes me something that shouldn't exist under the new rules, I guess. So lets remember this conversation in about 6 months. By then, I'll have my studios realigned, my software upgraded to current standards. All that good stuff. And I'll be a newbie. And I'll post my newbie attempts here, and we'll have another discussion about "20-30-year-old geniuses" vs. we "dead men/women."

In fact, as a friendly competitive reason to live one more week and maybe another excuse for everyone here to have some real fun (no sarcasm meant---I'm serious), why don't I use the "antique materials and software I now have to assemble some pieces for your honest critical review. It'll take me a month or so because of some matters I have to settle first, but I'd be interested in how I stack up...I mean...being dead and all...

[Marie]

Never let age, or being dead for that matter, stop you from doing what you love. My college experience found me in classes with people not just twice my age, but triple. For the most part they always ended up earning some serious respect in my book. Most were "starting over" or "starting something new" despite people telling them they "were too old"

"I'm too old to learn something new" is kind of like saying "well I am getting closer to being dead so I might as well stop living now..."

I think I jumped on the tangent express...

[0kelvin]

I have far more respect for experience than I do talent.



0kelvin

[Carnifex]

agree with 0kelvin.
also most artists have to train their talent before getting known. not everyone has as much time as lungbug or wes. or atleast,not everyone takes as much time.
we're gonna ask you when you're 20 or more-"why aren't you better yet?"
and don't call 20-30 old because that's gonna cause massive irritation between most of the forum members,who happen to fall into just that age group.

[SteveO]

Save a bullet for me too

Make that two bullets..

[dogfood]

Wow, I had so many comments. Being old (so that it's higher math to work out my age), geniuses (and how they all just "happen" to have a lot of experince, that being semi-independant of age), age when you start drawing (the best golf advice I'd heard was to start when you're younger, regardless of when you started), and doing what you love, even if you're dead (I'm going to follow Ilaekae around, even though I can't pronounce his moniker) just pushed them all out and now I can't recall what I really wanted to say. Man, I must be too old.

[look]

Some people start early, some starts late.
And it's just happen that older people are slightly more mature, and they can take critism well, and they don't tend to rush into fancy things and ignore learning basics.

I mean do you really see a lot of teens sit down quietly and do figure studies? Most of them just care to draw DBZ, Sailor Moon or other stylized works without studying the basics first, thus they don't draw as good and don't improve as fast.

[egerie]

Exactly. And then it's what you do all those years that count. You can start at 12 and still suck at 40. You can start at 20 and be great at 30. It all depends what you train, what you learn and if anything sticks to you at all. Skill = learning curve = talent. It's all about grasping the theory as fast as our little brains can whether it's colour, anatomy, design, etc.

Edit (nuance) : having knowledge is one thing tho. Having an artistic sense (being in touch with our emotional intelligence ?) is another. It's a two fronts kind of thing and not everyone remembers that.

[Interceptor]

I think it's because it takes a very mature young person to dedicate thier attention to becoming so skilled and most don't have that kind of patience..

[NoSeRider]

My experiences are most people under the age of 25 make crappy art anyway.

The ones that are young and exceptional are usually rare.

[darth massacre]

(I'm going to follow Ilaekae around, even though I can't pronounce his moniker)

That's EYE-LEAKY (did I get it right this time?)

That was what he told me about 2 yrs back Dunno if it still applies.


edit:

My experiences are most people under the age of 25 make crappy art anyway.

Not always. I could name half a dozen friends off the top of my head who are under 25 and should be working out there right now (but they're stuck in the army), prolly could find more if I dig deeper.


Edit: I dunno if this should be a separate discussion thread.

Since drawing is hand/arm-eye-brain coordination, it isn't a strictly mental thing, but also a physical thing. When I was training for competitive sports and while in the army, I was told that we need to repeat an action at least 2800 times for "muscle memory" to take place. And that "memory" needs to be kept constantly be trained and retrained to maintain the speed and familiarity of the action.

I believe to some levels, "muscle memory" is part of drawing. The more you draw, the better you get....and the easier it becomes. Also lends weight to the old adage, Practice Makes Perfect.

I think for folks who have the aptitude for certain things (I'm avoiding using the word "talent") it would be easier to pick things up. But with proper guidance and enough practice most people could be reasonabily skilled and enjoy the activity to a fuller extent.

[Ilaekae]

I'll accept that...I mean, I know you're chinese and all, so I tend to be a little more patient with you...








HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...


Edit: And a solid BRAVO! to your edit. There may be hope for you yet, Grasshopper...

[tinyhands]

Could it be...(?)

I was selling art and winning awards for creating art over 20 years before the geniuses I mentioned above were born, and that gives me at least some validity in calling myself a professional?

I know how to do everything these "20-30-year-old geniuses" will ever come up with...without the use of a computer and specialized technology to make life an easy coast to never-never land?

I have used materials and processes you have never even heard of, let alone used?

I understand, because of my background, why the software these "20-30-year-old geniuses" use does what it does...because I was there before it existed?

And one last point...I was able to understand where I stood against my peers professionally. Without technology. Without "age gauges." Without that subtle smile that told me that I really wasn't all that important anymore because I wasn't an "old genius of 20-30." I KNEW, in all caps, when someone was better than me. And I knew when I was better than him/her.

Quite possibly the best post ever.... that's old-school talk and I love it.
Dear god that was refreshing.

P.S. F*%# digital art.

-tiny

[Elwell]

My experiences are most people under the age of 25 make crappy art anyway.

Then again, so do most people over 25.

[Chris J. Anderson!]

luxun said:

in my opinion age doesnt matter, its skill.

egerie said:

It all depends what you train, what you learn and if anything sticks to you at all. Skill = learning curve = talent. It's all about grasping the theory as fast as our little brains can whether it's colour, anatomy, design, etc.

It's not just about skill, or learning curve and talent. A vital part of it is, opportunity. If you take 10 equally driven, ambitious, motivated, talented artists, gave one of them critically important opportunities that gives them more valuable art knowledge faster, that person will advance much much quicker than the rest. He/she will become the master before the other 9.

Skill and talent is just a part of the puzzel, circumstance and opportunity is the greatest aspect of what makes one great or mediocre. I say this because, you can't learn what you are unaware of. The more aware you are because of opportunity, the better you'll be at a faster rate.

About age, I think opportunity is more important than age. A 15 year old can become the master if given the opportunity to learn all the right knowledge at an early age. But a 30 year old can have that same circumstance happen to them at 30, and the two artists will be closely equal in ability. After that it all depends where there talents, later opportunities, and will power takes them.

-C

[Ilaekae]

[make crappy art] "Then again, so do most people over 25."

Very true. So what's your point, Elwell?

HaHaha

[egerie]

Skill and talent is just a part of the puzzel, circumstance and opportunity is the greatest aspect of what makes one great or mediocre. I say this because, you can't learn what you are unaware of. The more aware you are because of opportunity, the better you'll be at a faster rate.-C

Hey Chris. Well in learning I personally include the ability to understand what you're observing and not just dry theory. You learn it trough practice and observation (complemented by theory). Are we on the same wavelengh or.. ?

(holy crap this thread is flying!)

[Elwell]

[make crappy art] "Then again, so do most people over 25."

Very true. So what's your point, Elwell?

None, really, past Sturgeon's Law

However, blog's initial post, despite his rather... awkward phrasing, dose raise a valid point; why are there so few prodigies in the visul arts compared to other artistic fields? Classical music virtuosi in their early teens or younger are common enough to be almost unremarkable at this point. Child and teen actors regularly deliver performances of equal skill and emotional intensity to adults. And popular music has been driven by artists in their early twenties for the past fifty years.

The visual arts seem to have more in common with writing, in that practitioners take longer to reach a level of artistic competence, but then have a longer and steadier period of productive maturity.