People will readily acknowledge that you need some sort of a natural neurological predisposition towards maths or music.
But talen't don't real with visual arts and it's all just conditioning and practice?
Try telling that to STEMfags, see how it goes.
intelligence. if you consider that talent, yeah talent exists. otherwise no.
>'oh but that's a different type of intelligence'
I think that claim is bs. there is only one type of intelligence. and that's intelligence. problem solving skills, ability to understand complex relationships and process information.
math, science, music, visual art, it's all the same in that sense. The obvious discrepancies people use as anecdotal evidence are just a result of 'lack of interest in this but strong interest in that'. nothing else.
>Try telling that to STEMfags, see how it goes.
Here's a /sci/ thread on the subject: >>>/sci/7856869
>It's just misunderstood
>Because most schools cannot afford to have proper math teachers who can give a miniscule insight of what mathematics actually is.
>Because it's taught in a difficult and unintuitive way.
>It's considered popular among kids to not like math
>Because the concepts build upon each other, so if you go through school missing some concepts because of either your, or the instructor's fault, then you will be sitting there spinning for a while.
Most of the people there seem to believe that aptitude in math depends mainly on good teaching and being interested in it.
Do you really think you need a natural predisposition to art? Imagine if you were some illiterate peasant thousands of years ago, you'd be saying stuff like, "I'd love to learn to read and write, but I'm just not suited to it". If you had been taught to draw like you were taught to read and write you wouldn't be saying stuff like that.
Could be many reasons. Maybe they didn't have above average intelligence. Maybe they didn't try as hard as they claim they did (art is very much about mileage, not so much about 'getting it'). Maybe they never got good instruction and went at it with a completely inadequate approach.
I doubt you would reliably know that they are above average in iq though.
Dude's a rather accomplished engineer and he does a lot of things that require being able to think in 3d. His spatial skills are unparalleled and yet he can't fucking manage to draw anything by hand.
btw, i've noticed a sizable amount of actual engineers, both in /ic/ and in real life, which are interested in learning to paint digitally, so if there's such thing as a phenotypic trait for arts and maths, they're probably related.
i'd say is more of a psychological predisposition to enjoy doing shit alone.
Intelligence can be improved. All it is, is a way of seeing things. If you do enough problem solving activities and change your mindset you can get "more clever".
My partner has autism and has an extremely logical view on the world, it's amazing just listening to him explain concepts the way he sees it. It's proven that people above ~140 IQ see things differently than people below that number, you can find a source on that if you wish, and I believe his IQ is something like 176 (he told me about this a while ago so I don't remember exactly). It is possible for an average person to increase their intelligence past this threshold, it's not something that's given at birth and kept there forever. Take what you want from this, but the whole "I can't draw, I don't have the gene!!!" is fucking stupid.
Just draw and realise that you'll improve if you learn right.
The way maths should be taught is from problem solving questions. Not "remember this formula and these rules thanks".
The moment I started learning maths with problem solving questions, it almost instantly clicked.
I always wondered, people who focus on talent so much, do you think if someone learns to draw, that it was due to "talent", even if it took them 27 years to learn how to make something decent? Or do you think someone just can't draw, ever, if they don't have "talent"?