Is talent real? If so, how do I know whether I have it or not?

>>2953711
>do you get a grasp of concepts unnaturally fast regardless of how much time you spend practicing?
>if not, do you draw 12 hours a day and get minimal or no improvement at all?
It should be really easy to know.

>>2953711
yes. but you only get individual skills not entire skill sets. A person might be good at seeing spacial relationships but that doesn't mean they can draw. they may have excellent hand eye coordination bot cant see values. etc. now get back to drawing and work on those weak points.

skill = talent * (work * quality of work)

>>2953740
this applies to almost anything

>>2953711
No it isn't now go draw

>>2953711
It is but if you have to look at yourself and your work and ask if you have it, you probably don't.

>>2953711
It doesn't matter, since either way you have to work with what you got, so give your best, anon!

>>2953711
>Is talent real?
Yes
>If so, how do I know whether I have it or not?
It's usually apparent after the fact. You won't know until you put in good work for a few years. Even without talent you can get pretty far though, so it's not really worth worrying too much about.

No it's not real. However autism is real and if you have it, you have a better chance at getting gud.

>>2953711
talent is real and is not an absolute, you can have more or less of it. On its own it's worthless and even with work, talent doesn't necessarily translate into success. Success itself can be defined in various ways.
basically.

>>2953740
Replace talent with intelligence.

talent isn't real. people usually get good at what they want to, and then find it difficult to get good at other stuff because they're trying to balance it with the skills they already have. then they assume it's because they're not "talented" at the other stuff, but if they were innately talented at the first thing then why did they have to practice it a whole bunch to be any good?

>>2955197
>talent isn't real
explain mozart

>>2955197
You can't convince people otherwise. Just let people believe talent exists and those who suck, let them be forever depressed. They need the talent meme so they feel better about failing.

>>2953711
Art incorporates so many different things that you can have different talents in it. You could have a talent in rendering, drawing in perspective, design, colors, whatever. So yeah, talent is real.

However, it's hardly the defining factor to making it or getting good. There are lots of talented people who don't do anything with their talents. There are lots of people who made it through sheer hard work and are called talented because of it. It's hard to define something like that and know about its conditions. Basing your progress on believing you have or don't have talent is just going to waste your time.

>>2955387
He was forced to draw by his father since his early childhood. That combined with him probably being asperger (u know the shit he did) or high iq and at the age of 12 he surpasses kjg and already is working as an concept artist on several AAA titles

>>2953740
Why the fuck did you add parentheses

>>2955387
Mozart practiced a shit ton (and I mean a shit ton) before his 8th birthday. If you did something daily from the age of 5, with quality mentors and resources, and had a real passion for it, you'd be really fucking good at it too.

Drawing is actually one of those things that doesn't require a whole lot of talent, just creativity, knowledge, and some proper guidance. Same goes for writing, anyone can be a good writer if they practice and have good taste. Etc etc

>>2953711
Clench your fist. Check your wrist.

File: teachervsmaster.jpg (41KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 480x480px

>>2957648
kek this

It is a art.

>>2957636
learn math

File: proko.png (919KB, 1401x903px) Image search: [Google]

919KB, 1401x903px

>>2957677

>>2957712
nigguh its all multiplication, the order doesnt matter so neither do the parentheses

Talent exists, but the only people who are worried about it are the people who want an excuse for their failure.
People without talent will make it, people with talent have failed to get anywhere. Relying on talent is a fast way to fall behind and stagnate.

File: talent.jpg (119KB, 538x764px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 538x764px

>>2953711

>>2955387
This. He went and watched a performance of Miserere for two choirs, and went home & wrote it down note for note perfectly.
http://www.classicfm.com/composers/mozart/guides/mozart-allegri-miserere/
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miserere_(Allegri)

That was some special level of being at One with the music.

Does self esteem affect your ability to improve?

>>2957896
Did you also know that Gengis Khan personally killed 1,748,000 people in a single hour. That was some special level of "being at one" (retard) with the weaponized autism

>>2957646
>>2955760
lol read any of his biographies
he had an unreal disposition for learning music
his sister nannerl underwent the exact same regimen of training as he and never went past "accomplished musician" tier

>>2957904
Of course anyone who writes a biography of Mozart is going to slob on his knob. Maria Anna was 4.5 years older than Mozart, so she was almost like the trial run for Leopold to learn how best to create a 'prodigy'. Seeing his older sister's interest in music would've also motivated Mozart, who started to 'practice' when he was months old. The fact that Maria Anna never became as good as Mozart has more to do with her own motivation - and this is from wikipedia itself:

However, given the views of her parents, prevalent in her society at the time, it became impossible as she grew older for her to continue her career any further. According to New Grove, "from 1769 onwards she was no longer permitted to show her artistic talent on travels with her brother, as she had reached a marriageable age."[1] Wolfgang went on during the 1770s to many artistic triumphs while traveling in Italy with Leopold, but Marianne had to stay home in Salzburg with her mother. She likewise stayed home with Leopold when Wolfgang visited Paris and other cities (1777–1779) accompanied by his mother.

>>2953740
Skill = ((talent + intelligence) / mental blocks) * (work + (quality * effort))

>>2957941
gender issues aside, she never exhibited the same innate talent that mozart displayed from an early age
this is not people "slobbing on his knob", it's work done by historians. his musical memory was insane and totally out of the ordinary even for child prodigies. he had absolute pitch recorded from age 7 and was able to outplay celebrated, adult instrumentists before turning 10
I don't know how anyone could hold the position that there's no talent when there are so many insane examples out there pointing to the contrary: some people are BORN with totally out of the ordinary aptitude for some tasks

>>2957646
You're a dumbass, he was already composing by 5. Everyone ITT saying talent isn't real is coping.

You can waste talent, and you can have no creativity even with great technical talent. Greatness comes from simultaneously having drive, talent, and ingenuity, which are all orthogonal.

>>2957947
>>2954892
talent is a kind of intelligence
and "effort" already was accounted for on "quality of work", i think

>>2957954
Talent is like a specific subset of intelligence. But effort and quality aren't the same thing at all, you can put your soul into a piece and still just end up with a polished turd.

File: really makes you think.png (143KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 600x600px

Who is the Mozart of painting/drawing?

>>2957978
I think what he meant by "quality of work" is how deliberate and focused it is (something equivalent to effort), and not the quality of the final product

>>2957994
da vinci, now stop asking dumb questions and pic up a book nigger

/ic/ really likes going at this prodigy and talent shit huh?

There are plenty of world class, well known composers and musicians who a) were not child prodigies, b) didn't compose anything worth shit for a long while, and c) do not have absolute pitch.

Even Mozart fell into a sulk once he grew up because nobody gave a shit about him. He was a touch above the rest and remained there, no doubt. Composers and musicians were even back then (and still today) treated royally like shit. Mozart was no exception.

Anyway, Da Vinci has a few words on this subject in his Treatise on Painting. I think it's titled 'How to know if you have a disposition towards the art" or something like that.

>>2957994
Probably Bernini. Raised by an artist father, showed prodigious talent from a very young age, did art for wealthy patrons and revolutionized art, influenced generations after him, had weird personality quirks too, was a complete celebrity in his time etc. There's a lot of parallels.

>>2957994
Picasso

Your talent loads the gun; hard work pulls the trigger.

File: 1480243340364.jpg (34KB, 604x403px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 604x403px

>>2957951
perfect pitch is not innate. fact. it can be induced in children. [A longitudinal study of the process of acquiring absolute pitch: A practical report of training with the ‘chord identification method’]

and i QUOTE:

Mozart certainly could play the violin and keyboard instruments with a facility that eighteenth-century Europeans were not used to in one so young, but today, when we’re accustomed to seeing five- and six-year-olds trained in the Suzuki method playing beautifully on the violin and piano, his achievements seem much less wondrous.

[...] the claims of Mozart composing at six and eight years old are almost certainly overstated. First, we know that the early compositions Wolfgang supposedly wrote are actually in Leopold’s handwriting. Leopold claimed that he was just cleaning up young Wolfgang’s work, but we have no way of knowing how much of a given composition was Wolfgang’s work and how much was that of Leopold—who, remember, was a composer himself and, furthermore, a frustrated musician and composer who had never gotten all of the acclaim he wanted.

[...]

This seems even more likely, given what we know about the piano concertos that Wolfgang “composed” at eleven. Although these were considered original compositions for many years, musicologists eventually realized that they were all based on relatively unknown sonatas written by others.

So we have no solid evidence that he did compose any significant music on his own before he was a teenager, and good reason to believe he did not. And when he did unequivocally begin to compose music that was original and sophisticated, he had been training to compose for a decade or so. In short, while there is no doubt that Mozart would become an extraordinary musician and composer, there is no evidence for—and plenty of evidence against—the claim that he was a prodigy whose accomplishments cannot be understood as the result of practice and must therefore be attributed to innate talent.

>>2958065

You're hilarious. Picasso a shit, hia early work was not his but his artist father.

>>2958214
>fact
>a single five-year old study
please. what we do know for a FACT is that it can't be taught to adults

regarding the rest of your post: only some of his early compositions were written down by his father. and if you do compare them, they have very similar styles and patterns repeating all over them.

>there's no evidence that he's an innate prodigy
yeah, I guess his little tours over europe as a child are just a hoax, as is his ability to write down full pieces after listening to them once
again, there are many child prodigies out there, but mozart far exceeded their achievements without the aid of modern teaching methods

>>2958230
>a single study in which 100% of the subjects were able to develop perfect pitch
vs.
>aw naw man mozart he was like perfect at dat shieet like he got dem notes all right and shit

>what we do know for a FACT is that it can't be taught to adults
that's true. it has nothing to do with innate talent though or being prodigious. there's also the point to be made that perfect pitch is somewhat useless. it's brought up in mozart's case because it bolsters up this idea of him as some untouchable god

>regarding the rest of your post: only some of his early compositions were written down by his father.
oh, are those the ones that are direct plagarisms / adaptations of other composers? or are you not familiar enough with his early works to be making any such claims?

>yeah, I guess his little tours over europe as a child are just a hoax
[suzuki method, modern 'prodigies' intensifies]

>as is his ability to write down full pieces after listening to them once
again
that can be learned. did you know that people can learn to recite 100s of digits in order after hearing them once? but the more likely explanation is, yes, in the case of writing down 'full pieces', it is probably grade a BULLSHIT, like a ton of the fluff surrounding historians wetdreams over mozart

>again, there are many child prodigies out there, but mozart far exceeded their achievements
[[[[citation needed]]]]

>>2958237
>a single study solidifies something as fact
not very familiar with methodology, are we?

>super-human musical memory can be learned
stopped reading right there

stop shitposting, go back to drawing. that is, if you have the talent :^)

>>2958240
it's not solidified as fact. but there is nothing which remotely contests it.

>super-human musical memory can be learned
it isn't "super-human". that is what the science says. to call it that is to have fallen into an ideological trap and be seeing things from a flawed vantage point from the beginning.

>>2958022

Nah it's clearly Michelangelo.

>>2953711
Talent you have naturaly skill is something you learn.

Even Michelangelo said people wouldnt be thatamazed by his works if they knew the amount of time and sweat he put into them.

>>2958242
Science is repeatable, Mozart is not. Sage