>denial intensifies >no such thing as talent >everyone can do it, even I >some people have seen more pictures than others that's all >nothing special here >calming down again >I can make it if I really want to >Denial assimilates into subconsciousness again >feels good, almost comfortable
>>2349010 to be fair I wouldn't call this talent. Its autism focus. Autists are capable of focusing their entire mental capacity on a task. It may put their abilities above others, but its because they're trying their hardest and focusing completely on the task at hand. They didn't magically get ahead or better understanding necessarily, they just work their autistic brains to the fullest.
>>2349613 The thing is I wouldn't consider this a natural aptitude or skill because their aptitude isn't in art, its in autism focus. You can have talent on top of autism focus, but autism focus itself isn't necessarily a talent because its not specific to the skill. Theoretically anyone can artificially use drugs to intensely focus on a task and gain similar abilities to autists we just don't and we'd have to take it constantly.
I mean this is arguing semantics I suppose, I just don't consider autism as talent, I believe they're distinct things that sometimes happen at the same time but lead to similar results.
>>2349625 >new categories no I'm not? he may be talented as well, but the skill autists get is a very different thing than what's described as talent. You're simplifying it because the result is similar, but the process behind it is massively different.
>it's not talent it's autism focus, totally different, doesn't count
Yes you are. You're ignoring the literal definition of what a talent is and categorizing it as something else, probably because someone having a natural skill in a pretty clearly defined way (namely via a diagnosable disability) doesn't fit with the "talent isn't real" that /ic/ loves to spout.
If it's an aptitude he was predisposed to, that fits the category of how people generally refer to as talent. He "has a knack for it", even if it's via your coined "autism focus".
>>2349610 Ah, "autistic focus"... I can agree that some autists can focus better than normal people, but I don't agree that it doesn't qualify as talent. Would you be so kind and describe what you believe talent is, then?
>>2347630 This guy reminds me of that autistic kid on DeviantArt who seemed not to be making any progress at all for years but when you look at his drawings each one was not only exactly the same style as the last, but the style was repeated with mechanical precision.
If he decided to copy a proper style he could become a grand master in no time by just using his autism alone.
>>2354426 paralyzed from the neck down in a horse riding accident. Nobody can say for sure, but her actual drawing abilities are believed to be more realistic than reality itself. Her assistant has to draw for her now.
>>2350400 looking at this is funny because I could improve my work from fig. 2.46 to ''nadia at age 5'' by constantly telling myself one simple thing: ''think like a 5 years old''
when you are an adult you categorize things, our mind simplifies the information we get to be easier on the brain (e.g. that's a horse, that's a car, that's a airplane etc.). so when one tell himself to draw one of those he draws the most basic stuff he remembers about it
but a kid doesn't know what all this stuffs are, so he ask constantly questions (etc. what's that? what does it do? how does it do? etc)
>bonus, don't let your kids do stuff which stops them from asking questions, like bullshit cartoons dumped down for 5 years old, but complex things for them, don't be afraid of mature subjects. remember, you don't have a kid, but an adult in becoming
This is not talent, this is a savant. You don't want to be a savant. People like this are very good at very, very specific tasks due to quirks in their neurology - at the detriment of many others. He's good at accurately recreating images from memory, but most likely he can't do construction for shit. There are no clever workarounds like one may think, because savants do ONE THING extremely well, and only ONE THING.
Another example is the dude they based Rain Man on, who did mental calculation like no one's business but who could never figure out how to brush his teeth by himself, since he originally was taught to wait for his father before doing it.
From this dude's wikipedia page I gather he's crazy good at doing urban landscapes and not much else.
>>2356921 I think most people get his by now. the question is: what... drumroll... is talent?
People who deny talent usually attribute normal talent to experience and hard work, and when faced with undeniable talent like autism they claim it is not talent at all, it is "savant" or "autistic focus".
So, that implies two things:
they acknowledge talent by negation "that is not talent..."
and it implies that some people are extraordinarily good at something, and there has to be a sharp definition between normal people who can only get good by experience and hard work, and autistic people who are subject to this "autistic focus". Had autistic focus occurred in a milder form in regular people, wouldn't that be talent? Or doesn't that happen?
Not that I expect a logial explenation from a mind in denial, but please explain what is talent?
>>2357124 What the fuck do you mean, undeniable talent? The whole "hurr evry1 ho disagre wit m3 r dum" thing has already pretty much set whatever argument you thought you had aside, but fine.
This is literal proof of what people are saying about talent. That it's a predisposition towards a certain skill or skillset, in our case drawing. It is not the magical hand of god touching you when you were born. In this case, the autistic guy has an incredible visual memory. If you are "talented" at drawing, you are predisposed towards drawing. Apparently in your fetal alcohol syndrome-addled mind, this means anyone who is not predisposed towards drawing cannot ever be good at drawing.
If you want to be a defeatist idiot, then go ahead, sadwank your life away. But throw the half baked self justifications out with the tissue so we don't have to waste our time on your trite shit.
Okay, so talent exists and it is a predisposition toward a skill or skillset. I'm okay with that. I'd like to add that the brain is very trainable and people can get good at stuff they don't have an appearant talent in.
I don't see how that definition separates normal talent from "savant" or "autistic focus" though.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.