Lets talk about talent

The Spark.

>>2710889
Talking about talent and whether it exists or not is just a waste of time, go draw.

>>2710889
become an artist and find out

>>2710889
My talent is whining im fucking great at demotivate myself and be a lil bitch

>>2710889
talent is iq * early intrest

>>2710889
I just went to Kim Jung Gi's workshop in NYC and I can tell you that it's not talent. He filled up 2-3 sketch books a day in his early twenties. This man is drawing as much as he breathes.
He admitted to not studying perspective nearly as much as most do, (only the basic perspective fundamentals everyone gets in art school) and instead, resorted to sheer massive amounts of drawing of the human anatomy that he also applied to animal anatomy.
He's been drawing since childhood, and started taking it seriously in high school.
There are not plenty of people who drew as much as he did, nor can you say that they even used the same approach he has.

I suggest you read the book Talent is Overrated. It has a ton of research evidence it goes through on people that are widely considered "talented" and narrows into what actually made them that way.

Calling someone talented is an insult to everything they have sacrificed in their lives to get to that point of mastery.

If talent is anything, it's early interest coupled with passion to continue, time put in & a supporting setting. No child's first drawing would you call the result of "genetic talent."

>>2710932

Talent is Overrated is bordering on self-help literature. Also I believe that visual arts is unique when it comes to natural talent.

Speaking of scientific papers

https://www2.bc.edu/ellen-winner/pdf/talent_in_visual_arts.pdf

>>2710932
>filled up 2-3 sketch books a day
let's say he got really thin sketchbooks, like 50 page sketchbooks, and he only drew on 1 side of each page. 2-3 a day at a minimum means 100 pages a day, let's say he works at a blistering 16 hours a day, that's a rock bottom minimum still 6 and a quarter pages an hour, what the fuck's he doing to consistently speedrace through pages at such a pace?

>>2710947
It's not self-help really. (Towards the end the author actually goes on to say that if you didn't start as a child, it's basically too late to play catch up onto those "talented" prodigies) Just a book that sets out to debunk what everyone believes to be talent because it's a word thrown at almost anyone that has done well at something by people who turn a blind eye to what had to happen to make that possible. It's also an easy cop-out for people that wanted to do something creative or ambitious but wouldn't be willing to actually put in the required effort because they're discouraged that they're not getting instant results. Thousands of hours are needed.

Thanks for the paper. I'm about half way through it; a lot of the studies are included in the book and similar points made. It's interesting, might get back when I finish reading later.

>>2710948
Ignoring a lot of his studies I imagine. He said wasn't a good student. I bought his 2007 sketch collection at the event and it's pretty incredible how much he indiscriminately fills up pages.

>Watts, Vilppu said talent exist
>it's not real reeee

>>2710978
You have a page for scanning? I can guess how it looks, but some people may not.

>>2710983
Watts talks about it in a much more elaborate way, with an in-depth theory about the different personality types that can succeed as artists. He talks about the mindset you need to achieve mastery in any profession, and how you can get it. Not nearly as simple and black and white as idiots like you want it to be.

Craig Mullins on talent:
>So keep on drawing and painting and thinking and learning. The most versatile and true talent is perseverance.

>I suppose there is such a thing as talent, but it tends to be really overated, IMHO.

>Can you sustain the interest you have now over many years? That will be the difference, and a large part of talent. There is no substitute for doing it a lot. You cannot think yourself into doing something well. You have to paint as naturally as you write or breathe. Takes time and patience that cannot fade. You will reach plateaus where you will be frustrated and it seems like you are making the same mistakes over and over again. Bierstadt was a hopeless hack, and he blossomed overnight. Many thought he had a little dwarf who did his paintings, because the hopeless painter he was could not have possibly produced what he later did. So if you can sustain your interest, you will get a lot better. No guarantees that you will become a great master, that is maybe real talent, but no doubt you can learn to be a solid professional.

File: 21506289.jpg (72KB, 500x648px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 500x648px

The more you tie your brain up with this useless-ass subjective bullshit the less you can actually draw.

Its about focusing your streams of consciousness to a common goal in a incremental and consistent manner. That's fucking it.

You think any of the old masters sat there and thought/ worried about this shit? No they probably were too busy trying to find something to jerk off to or put their dicks inside of.

Just think how much harder their lives were and how much more dumb bullshit they had to worry about like farming and hunting and eating and not getting sick or having inquisitors after their asses

i think if you practice enough you can get pretty good, but drawing came naturally to me from an early age. some people just get a head start

>>2711021
Practice alone is not enough. You need to add analysis to it. Just like old masters did it.

I think Kim's drawing has a tactile dimension to it, same is true about most people who have an intuitive feeling of form.

File: kjg150.jpg (811KB, 2336x1698px) Image search: [Google]

811KB, 2336x1698px

>>2710998
Scanner sucks for such a large book, sorry for blur. Over 900+ pages.

>>2711013
He actually talked about talent and their speed of learning in one of the videos, idiot.

File: 14748102530230.jpg (104KB, 1280x835px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1280x835px

>>2711035

Thanks, it looks amazing

>>2711042
Obviously different people learn at a different speed you moron. Watts still talks about how talent/intelligence/aptitude or however you want to call it is just one of many things necessary to achieve mastery. Your comment "hurr Watts and Villpu say talent exists thus my defeatist black and white interpretation of it is true!" is unbelievably stupid and childish.

File: 325px-Exponential_cdf.svg.png (22KB, 325x216px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 325x216px

As I see it, talent is a combination of aptitude on several of the base-skills that conform a major skill, e.g. hand eye coordination, quick reflexes and overall motor skills build up a skillful tennis player. Base-skills are always trainable; they are usually acquired through experience and in rare cases they are fostered by genetic traits (the case of genius children)
With that into consideration, the major aspect that develops a skill is premeditated practice. Natural disposition will only get you so far, comparing skill growth will only influence the initial improvement at the skill but it will normalize (let's say a genius is blue, and you're red). This also explains why a lot of child prodigies fall off later in life (they had an initial big spurt of skillfulness, but without practice/experience/tutelage their work becomes mediocre)

Read this study http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/EricssonDeliberatePracticePR93.PDF . It compares Professionals, Good, and Teacher levels of skill and their accumulated practice hours. By age 20, the Professionals have about 25% more time than the Good invested, and about 150% more than the Teachers. If you are starting late in life (or you consider it as such) it's mostly irrelevant (unless physical impairments are present, but you're not an old folk)
Three P's, Perfect Patient Practice. You have to analyze what you're practicing, how you're practicing it and overcome whatever hurdles you find in your way. Patiently.
tl;dr
get to draw, bitch

>>2711071
>Your comment "hurr Watts and Villpu say talent exists thus my defeatist black and white interpretation of it is true!" is unbelievably stupid and childish.
I don't understand your black and white garbage. Talent exist? Right. It's exist. Jeff has superior hand dexterity? Right. He admit it himself. Where is black and white?

>>2711083
<^
That study and others also in "Talent is Overrated" book. Highly recommend
>>2711043
No prob. May scan couple others that I really like and post later.

Talent has to exist in some manner because spacial awareness is genetic (men are better than women, for hunting)

That being said, I think it's so incredibly tiny and only helping for like your first month of drawing, so it's pointless

99.99% is how much you want to get better

Yes, everyone wants to be the best, but people work harder than others at it

>>2710889
some people have that "spark" that helps them learn to draw easier, it's like creating an RPG character and putting your points into a particular talent, in this case drawing. But that doesn't mean that you can't develop that talent later on even if you were born without a single point in it initially.
Just like with any skill ever, all it takes is practice.

>>2711035
God DAMN.