Hmm

File: FireShot Screen Capture #355 - 'rasmus php quotes - Google Search' - www_google_co.png (535KB, 1868x292px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 1868x292px

>>2981504
Work>talent
this guy is praised by mit and made php

>>2981504
It would be more accurate if "talent" was a rocket and "hard work" was an air balloon, both starting at the same ground level.

>>2981508
>made php
that really does explain everything

Talent doesn't exist. It's a buzzword used to explain why one person learned something faster than other people. It's a way for stupid/lazy people to explain why other people do better than them. Chances are you're just dumber than the person you think is more 'talented', or you're underestimating how much work they've actually put in to get where they are compared to you.

>>2981504
god I hate talented people they didn't have to work hard!

File: 1453065913460.png (713KB, 616x676px) Image search: [Google]

713KB, 616x676px

>>2981584
truth has been posted

talent does not exist, bye.

>>2981504
The only talent that will take you to the top is the talent for hard work.

talent does exist. creativity is something that cannot be taught or trained. you cannot come up with something original and genius if you lack creativity and you lack talent.

Talent does exist but it's actually called intelligence.
ie: Someone who is stupid as fuck will have a lot more trouble learning art (or anything) than someone that is smart.

>>2981584
Talent is just basic motor skills and mental attributes like memory, spatial perception, and intelligece, the latter you obviously lack since you could've looked up one single book that delves into the subject, which you were obviously too lazy or dumb to do.

>>2981620
P.s.: the depiction in the OP is also a retarded way to look at talent.

>>2981604
but creativity can be trained, anon

>>2981604
>creativity is something that cannot be taught or trained

Sure it can. It's called inspiration and it leads to vision.

>>2981584
Being able to pick things up faster is exactly what talent is though.
There'll always be people in any field that seem to understand things 10x faster you and be able to think up ways to use those things in ways you'll never comprehend.
It sucks but that's nature. Anyone can get to a skill level where you're better than most professionals if you work hard enough, but there'll always be "talented" people who are off doing things you just can't understand.

File: mkay.jpg (144KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1200x1200px

>>2981504

I think it's more like this pic, as a lot of "talented" kids began to draw earlier and put more efforts into it, but to them it was playing, not hard work.

When they begin to draw seriously and read boring stuff, they have that Mileage, even if it wasn't about drawing correct anatomy or perspective, they're still 1000 shitty pictures ahead of a real beginner.

>>2981628
>Being able to pick things up faster is exactly what talent is though
Yeah which is dependent on how serious and ambitious you are about learning. The genetic factor doesn't play a roll at all unless you are born a savant.

>>2981628
The entire notion that people start from the same point just because they share a class is stupid. What you call talent is passion and to them it's not work but fun. To you it may be about getting famous and earning a lot of money but to the other guy it's an honest interest in how things work and they study because they want to, not because it was homework.

That's the difference. It's not them that are exceptional. It's you who suck and probably should spend your time on other stuff.

>>2981656
>>2981657
There is an innate ability to pick things up that differ from person to person.
For example in my field, I didn't have any interest until college. When I went for my first classes I was surrounded by people who have been doing it for years. But I was able to picked things up in the class and do things far better than they still can.
I'd call that talent, I never had any interest in it before hand, I just had an innate ability to understand what was being taught better than they could. And there was never any hard work behind it, it just made sense when I was told what things were, and it didn't make sense to other students without hard work and hours of examples.

I apply the same type thing to art and talent, unfortunately I have no such talent in the art world. Things don't "click" for me when drawing, but I've seen other people who hear things and it does "click" for them. That's not to say they perfectly master it the first time, but they understand what's meant when something is taught, and are able to utilize it somewhat without all the indepth work I have to do.

>>2981676
the click thing relates to previous education and experiences one has in their lives
college things "clicked" for you maybe because you had shown interest in a prior education that supported those things and other people in the field didnt have that
same thing with the drawing "click"
maybe it clicks faster for other people because they have been studying and trying things related to those skills far more than what you have

its not a simple thing, that is for sure
its not just interest, or time put in a subject
its not just intelligence
its not just previous bagage/education

I think its a combination of them all
intelligent people with a good education and that show interest into something will always have an advantage
and in this aspect the other anon who said that people who doesnt have those, specially force of will to study/work, will get envious and say its "talent"
because they dont want to admit to themselves that its mostly their lack of will to work/study that set them appart

>>2981694
edit, the other anon who said it was envy was right

>>2981694
I don't think talent is a good excuse, as the successful talented people still put in years of hard work.
But I think people saying there's nothing that exists that can be considered talent are just ignoring reality as well.

I think talent and intelligence are basically the same thing, just intelligence toward a specific thing. And intelligence does vary from person to person. Its just another way of saying it.

I'm just saying there is such a thing as talent (see intelligence) that does play a role in learning things.
Its not the end all be all of art, but it does play a role.

>>2981676
No. But dividing subject into classes and then thinking of them as isolated is stupid. For example in programming there are a lot of knowledge and experience that can give the illusion of talent. Like having a good understanding of math or an experience with software design. Some things you will intuitively understand the intent of when a teacher covers it.

You will have had encountered the topic before in your life to some degree or from some aspect. It's about experience, interests and mileage. It doesn't matter if you call it hard work, fun or something else. You're not a special snowflake blessed with a superpower.

>>2981699
I agree
I think I get my jimmies rustled when people say talent
like you said, some say talent when it could mean intelligence, then why not say intelligence ?
this all contributes to talent being something that no once can pinpoint what it is and its just the perfect subjective excuse

>>2981579
kek

>>2981633
This is basically it. Many times, people with shit art tend to draw for "fun", but when they start learning fundies, they improve on such a rapid rate.

Yeah no it's very obvious when shitters use crutches. Usually their perspective is extremely basic.

>>2981723
Personally I say talent because people have intelligence ingrained to mean academic intelligence or something more science/math based as opposed to spatial intelligence or other forms of intelligence.
So for more people intelligence conveys the wrong meaning when they understand what talent means.

File: tumblr_ok97z0jsn81w0qmx4o1_500.jpg (52KB, 500x650px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x650px

>>2981584
Why does this meme persist? I know plenty of people who work really hard and never improve. Their work doesn't improve, their thinking doesn't improve, their taste doesn't improve despite spending all day every day doing art. Incidentally they don't think talent is real either. Also I know people who don't work as much or as hard who improve more.

>>2981778
If you're not improving even when working hard, chances are you're staying inside your confort zone. Progress happens only outside out it.

>>2981584
Only socialists belive in this

>>2981778
Hard work != working smart.
You have to work smart not just hard to git gud. Drawing circles every day for 10000 days will make you great at drawing circles. But you're going to be absolute shit.
Someone who knows what to work on and goes toward that will improve all around faster even at a fraction of the effort.

>>2981508
that's like every programmer who accomplishes anything

>>2981676
>There is an innate ability to pick things up that differ from person to person.

It's called intelligence.

>>2981584
The fact that you're so incredibly fucking shallow that you think people can only believe in talent if they're bad, speaks volumes about you.
I believe in talent because I'm not insane. People aren't born identical. They have different innate abilities. Most people are average and can go far if they work hard enough. Some people are more talented, and will improve faster with the same amount of work. Other people are really talented, and improve at an exponential rate.
It has nothing to do with jealousy. It's just fucking human nature.

If you don't believe in talent, that simply means you're a fucking moron who's never been better than anyone else at anything. If you had talent, you would have noticed how much quicker and easier you learn certain things compared to others.

>>2981806
This. Besides, I've known people who were talented at art (drew like seasoned artists at the age of 12), and some of them were fucking retarded. So no, intelligence has nothing to do with talent. Some people are just improving faster, and that's it.

brooding and blaming everything on something outside of your control is basically the main attribute of being a failure.
if somethings harder you wouldn't care and do it anyway if you actually enjoyed doing art. seems like for you guys its just a chore.

>>2981504

Depends. Some things like singing can't always be worked for, even if you work every day of your life, if you have a shit voice, it's a shit voice.
But things like art take skill and creativity, and creativity is what can't be taught. If all you can do is be a human copy machine but can't have a single original idea in your head, you won't find any real success as an artist once the normies catch on.

>>2981839
Acknowledging the existence of a genius physicist doesn't mean I think no-one should learn math and physics. It just means I acknowledge the fact there's someone out there better than most people will ever be.
Just because bolt exists and can run 100m in 6 seconds doesn't mean I don't think anyone else should run, it just means they won't be as fast as him.

You can recognize there are abilities other people have that you can't surpass without giving up. It's just a fact of nature that there'll be people better than you. I don't see why people here think that by accepting that it somehow makes you give up or that you're making excuses.

>>2981504
>Talent doesn't exist. It's a buzzword used to explain why one person learned something faster than other people. It's a way for stupid/lazy people to explain why other people do better than them. Chances are you're just dumber than the person you think is more 'talented'

>Says talent isn't real
>Then admits others have inherent advantages that let then learn faster

>>2981785
>Only socialists belive in this

What are you talking about? Socialists are the ones who deeply believe in talent. Socialist countries are known for scouting children at a very early age depending on their talent and aptitude, especially for sports and music / art and that's the path in life they will have to take as dictated by the government.

>>2981584
Talent is real. The only people that deny it are idiots and people that are talented, but want to make people appreciative them more by saying it was all hard work, and so they can laugh at how much the commoners struggle to get to their level.

abloo abloo abloo. go draw

>>2983730
Everyone who gets good will be called talented by losers like you though. So it's not like there could ever be a case that proves you wrong because you already believe what you want to believe no matter the individual case.

>>2983736
Not everyone that gets good is talented, just the ones that deny talent the most.

>>2983740
They all seem to "deny" talent equally. In that they say "eh, maybe it's a thing, who cares, just work hard and see how far you can go" The only people who are obsessed with talent are shit tier amateurs.

>>2983742
Exactly. So when the other artists fail to reach their level, they get a boost in their ego and recognition with little additional effort.

>>2983730
No its not. Kids copying stylization crutches and impressing retards on tumblr and reddit is not impressive.

>>2981584
>Be talented
>Draw your best drawing
>Draw another drawing that makes your best drawing look like dog shit
>Can never be satisfied with anything because you keep growing in leaps and bounds
>Wish that you were consistent like the hard-workers

>>2983750
Yeah and the failed artists then procceed to pretend it was all about talent and their lack of it. After all, it's much easier to accept your failure when you pretend it was a divine fate given to you by god, as opposed to owning up to your own lack of effort and dedication.

>>2983756
The only times you can visibly improve by leaps and bounds is when you still make huge beginner mistakes that can be fixed by learning the basics. Every beginner gets through a phase of vast improvement, but the longer you stay in that phase, the more likely it is that you are in fact not talented at all because it means you are still a beginner making huge mistakes.

>>2983763
That's not what I'm saying. A talented artist gets to be really good because of his talent and practice. In order to sound more important, he tells other artists he got there with practice alone. The other talent-less artists practice and realize how far ahead the talented one is. So they think he worked so hard to get where he is and admire him when really his hard work only played a part with the rest being his talent. He gets easy praise for this.

>>2981584
>>2981778
so much fucking this, there are a lot of losers, who draw every day and cant do shit, yeah hard work helps you but talent still exist idiot

>>2981785
also that everyone can be genius shit

>>2983769
The thing is though, you have no idea how talented an artist may or may not have been. All you can do is look at the end results and then speculate how much of it was talent and how much of it was hard work and then choose to believe whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

Likewise, the artists you think are talented have no objective way to measure just how much of their talent went into improvement, because they too went through all the struggle and frustration as anyone else did, so when they say it's all hard work and no talent, they don't say that to consciously mislead you, they say it because in their own experience, they genuinely don't feel talented.

>>2983775
So talent is real and people just aren't aware of it then.

>>2983782
aptitude and intelligence are real. Talent is a broad catch-all term that is pretty much useless when applied to art due to just how many different skills you need to succeed at it. Noobs on /ic/ always use talent to describe one thing only, the ability to improve quickly at your technical skill. That's probably the least important "talent" you can have as an artist.

>>2983786
Technical skills are far from useless.

>>2983789
never said they are, but you don't need to be particularly talented to develop them to at least a competent level.

all I know is that most of the best artists/talented "prodigies" have an extremely analytical and curious mindset. and then they work their asses off too.

File: rof5Cjp.jpg (48KB, 500x361px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 500x361px

>>2981504

>>2981504
Why aren't you guys drawing right now?

File: ic stuff.jpg (791KB, 884x499px) Image search: [Google]

791KB, 884x499px

>>2981778
Cause there's a huge differences from working smart and working hard.

Talent is a meme, but being retarded is a thing.

>>2983802
underrated post

itt : semantics

File: le talent.png (534KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

534KB, 1200x1200px

>>2981504

>>2983959
This comic doesn't mention art at all though.

>>2983802
i really fucking despise seeing this guy in my twitter feed

>>2983959
>an activity, such as a job, that a person uses physical or mental effort to do, usually for money
Seems like it is

>>2981785
>To each to their ability; to each to their need
Nigger, what? Socialism is all about emphasizing natural talent to better one's self. That is one of the major arguments for it. In capitalism, many abilities go unappreciated or are even demonized because they do not have the ability to turn a buck. Socialism at least claims to fix this by allowing people to pursue their talent without the need to turn a profit from it.

File: art.png (584KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 1200x1200px

>>2981504

>>2984057
Nah, like all unmotivated artfags, he will quit after the third panel.

>and run off with Kickstarter money he begged to do the comic

>>2983947
For some reason, seeing people on /ic/ makng it fills me with a feeling of joy.

>>2981786
>>2983947
>continuing the just world fallacy by saying bad artists are not only untalented, not only lazy, but stupid as well
How far will you move the goalposts before the life evidence of so many aspiring and failed artists convinces you that some people just aren't cut out for it?

>>2983802
Holy kek

>>2984064
If you described it better it'd change things, but just saying someone is "working hard" doesn't mean they'll improve.
You can be working hard toward the wrong things, and it happens quite often when you're working on your own or you stick in comfort zones

>>2984096
yes, they also need to be talented

>>2981508
>Work>talent
They're not competing traits. Also, what you're referring to is basically the 2500 years of fable of the tortoise and the hare, where hard work wins over talent, because talent made the hare lazy. That doesn't mean you can't have talent and still work hard. Doesn so means you'll do better than someone who works hard but has no talent.

>>2981584
Talent can be seen as a multiplier, even if that's grossly oversimplified. If you're average, your multiplier is 1. If you put in X amount of work, you will improve X times 1.

If you're talented, your multiplier is higher than 1. It may be 1.3, it may be 5, or it may be anything inbetween.

Of course, the problem with defining talent is that it's not an on/off switch, and that the traits that give you an advantage in the visual arts can depend on a number of different gene combinations and personality traits. Some traits can make you a good illustrator. Some give you an advantage when it comes to color. Some give you better spatial perception. It could also be tied to photographic memory or particularly vivid visualization abilities. Pure intelligence can also give you an advantage and make you learn more efficiently, though it's technically not a talent.
If you really want to push the definition of talent, you might even include the ability to work hard and concentrate for particularly long periods of time. This might just be a cultural thing, but I suspect that chinks have a natural inclination towards concentrating for very long periods of time based on their studious, robotic nature, their ability to become mechanically good at things that require endless repetition and their ability to work for 16 hours a day for 20-30 years, like a lot of manga artists do.

>>2981584
I can't understand how talent can be up for discussion. It's obviously real. But that discussion has been had a thousand times on this board. What is fascinating is what motivates the delusion that talent doesn't exist.

My guess is that talented people say talent doesn't exist, because they don't like the idea that their craft comes easy to them, and they want it to look like they managed to "learn" how to do something normies regard as almost magical. Like it was just a decision on their part to learn this magic trade of making art and they succeeded at it.

un-talented people deny talent because they don't like the idea that it isn't a fair race, probably. And also justify their own failure as lack of practice.

I consider myself quite talented, and when people ask me "how do you do that!?" I ask them that if they had the time and dedication to sit down and give it a try, wouldn't they be able to do it? Their answer is of course a sincere "no" and I absolutely know they are right. I was asked this question a couple of days ago and there is no way that person would be able to do the same thing with as little practice as I have.

People are different and have extremely different approaches to life. I am very detail-oriented and I have probably a life-time of training in detail observation which relates to drawing as talent, which someone else doesn't have. The denial of talent is based on a truckload of personal bias, justification, emotions and whatever. It's idiotic and counter-productive.

File: 1494216995442.png (14KB, 166x166px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 166x166px

>>2984347
Post work

File: 1492100430579.jpg (123KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1280x720px

>>2984374
>anyone talking shit on /ic/ ever posting their work

File: hand.jpg (186KB, 612x816px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 612x816px

>>2984374
Nothing special, but I started drawing one year ago, and haven't been very disciplined at all. This is the level where I started more or less. Copied from photo.

File: 1483328309679.jpg (74KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 600x600px

>>2984428

>>2984429
poast yer werk

>>2984429
It's good enough to say I have above average skill for 1 year of barely drawing. Post your work faggot.

>>2981610
There are many incredible artists who are dumb as a bag of rocks

>>2981778
There's also this established factoid that aptitude is a myth and you can achieve anything at any time provided you work hard, which is just as stupid as believing that art is a god-given gift bestowed upon a few chosen ones.

The truth, of course, is complicated because we're not flawless robots. Starting at 25 is a lot harder than starting at 15 and I doubt I'll ever reach the level of someone who was set on becoming an artist since childhood, and made better drawings in high school than I did after 5 years of constant study. I fucked around and I likely missed that train.

Maybe I'll be able to claim the same level of expertise at something like 50, if I ever will. I also won't find a "job" as easily because I'm already out of touch with both the market and the audience I'm selling to. I'm probably facing a lot more self-doubt and depression than the guy who started at 15 and has already worked in several small productions. As with everything in life, these factors are interconnected and there's always a chain reaction at work.
But this also means that maybe my art will stand out somehow because of all the factors above. I know that the fact I'm struggling so much is making me a lot more thoughtful about what and why, before how I'm drawing.

In the end it's really pointless to think about this shit, especially since all this incredible talent has managed to produce almost no meaningful content at all in the last two decades. So fuck these precocious kids, you can have your triple A studios. I'll do my thing.

File: 1489243159114.jpg (38KB, 372x407px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 372x407px

>>2984347
>>2984428
>I'm talented I swear!
>here's my badly drawn picture of a hand anyone could learn to do in 3 months

File: 1484356180556.jpg (25KB, 640x639px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 640x639px

>>2984623
>Copied from photo
0 respect for human photocopiers, let alone failed human photocopiers.

File: Niito.png (1MB, 2131x2800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2131x2800px

>>2984477
1 year, 2 hours no references.
I'm not even boasting, I know it has a shit ton of mistakes but compared to your crap, holy shit.

>>2984645
>comparing a pencil sketch/ lifedrawing to a half-finished illustration
nigga what?

>>2984645
>>2984654
you guys look like little children

>>2984347

Talent exists. But there are also a lot of talented artists who don't have a job, and a lot of hard working people who broke into the industry through grit. We only have fables about squandered talent, not squandered industriousness.

Once in a while, a perfect combination of talent, originality, perseverance, and luck combine to produce a once in a lifetime artist. But the rest of industry is not that, and it chugs along just fine.

>>2984654
Post your half finished illustration

>>2984659
>We only have fables about squandered talent, not squandered industriousness.
Because of survivor bias. It's easy to claim that those industrious people obviously weren't that industrious or they wouldn't made it. Or maybe you could pass their hard work as talent, and call it squandered talent, since it's much easier to accept.

File: david.jpg (78KB, 540x803px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 540x803px

>>2984477
>Look how above average I am after some practice!
It doesn't matter how fast you think you are improving. What matters is whether you are any good now.

>>2984428
Lmao above average for 1 year of drawing.
This is pretty shit dunning kruger sama. I've seen people who have been drawing for 6 months who are way better than you.

>>2984428
If you said you did this from life, there would be props to be given. Copying a photograph is like using training wheels. Do a still life of your hand or someone else's then we'll talk. It does look alright desu though.

>>2984428
Maybe I am talented after all!

>>2981592
Thai kick

What about people who work a lot but don't seem to improve? It bums me out when I see a gallery page with years and years of drawings that just never improve in quality. It feels worse when I see it in peers who don't improve after several courses.

How does this happen?

>>2981801
But intelligence doesn't fully factor into objects of pure strength and skill, like sports. Now if only there was some kind of broad, generalized word that encompasses everything involved in the idea that some people are just naturally better at certain things than others...

>>2984946
Actually it does, it doesn't include the biological differences, but things like spatial intelligence is the main thing that separates people who are better at things like sports.

>>2984936
>What about people who work a lot but don't seem to improve?

Read the thread, moron.
Literally, that very thing is currently being discussed.

>>2984982
I'm talking the people who just never get past fucking awful, that don't even make it to mediocre. I feel real bad for em, but I always worry that could be me in their place.

>>2984946
If you are fine with just writing everyone good off as talented without ever questioning the details, then I don't think you have what must be one of the most important things what it takes to become successful at art: an analyitcal, critical mind.

>>2984998
I've never once heard of a case where the artist worked hard on their art for a prolonged period of time yet stayed fucking awful. The only people who stay at that stage are literal autistic people who do art as a hobby without ever even coming accross the concept of studying and improvement. If you are worried that you are one of them, then that's a very bad sign because it means you have completely untrained eyes to judge your own work somewhat objectively.

>>2985115
Yeah, I think most of the cases I'm thinking of are autists. It's not that I worry I AM one, but more like "what if it happened to me". I fear hitting a wall and no longer being able to improve. It's probably not very rational.

>>2981584

If talent is defined as being more inclined at learning a skill than others, then yes it absolutely fuckin exists.

As a past runner on teams where people did the same work outs I can assure you with objective measurements that some people are more adept and inclined at running than others.

File: 018_2109699476_495dea64_0010.jpg (668KB, 960x700px) Image search: [Google]

668KB, 960x700px

>>2981723
why the discussion did not end her?

/thread is over ppl, go home

pic related, one of the most intelligent human to choose art as a job

I wonder how much coordination/fine motor skills impact ones' artistic potential. I have a friend who is real passionate about animation, but after having a bad seizure, he lacks the necessary motor control to be any good at it.

>>2985128
Yeah but this sort of thing doesn't really matter for art as it matters for sports because art isn't just one skill, it's dozens of skills combined. You don't need talent in all of those skills to succeed in art, you just need to find one or two skills where you aren't untalented.

File: trees.jpg (249KB, 816x612px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 816x612px

>>2984429
>>2984623
>>2984896
>>2984910
>>2984922
>judging my drawing as "not talented" while still claiming talent doesn't exist

I don't care what you think of my skill level, I really don't know enough about drawing to evaluate it myself, but I do know that doing something like that hand is seen as talent IRL among normies. Of course it gets hacked on this board, that's why I like this place.

pic is from life. I'm only posting because I'm a believer in the "post work" meme at this point, not to convince anyone I have talent.

>>2985269
Shitty anime doodles on DA is considered talented by normies. Normies are not the criteria for talented.
You suck and you are far from having any talent. Lose the ego kid.

>>2985269
>Posts shitting /beg/ tier work
>uses the term talent in the same post

There is just no way someone could be this deluded. Please tell me you're trolling.

>>2985269

That picture is not something to be proud of. It is very typical of someone in the beginner's skill set to create.

Most people don't even remotely breach the entry level because they don't even begin. This is not an usual piece to see in a public school art class.

>>2984491
Name one

File: 1489055319617.jpg (32KB, 307x409px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 307x409px

>>2985456
Me

>>2985456
Dave Rapoza. Didn't even finish highschool.

>>2985571
>Formal education = Intelligence
K then

>>2985565
post work

File: IMG_0041.jpg (262KB, 1216x903px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1216x903px

>>2985574
>>2985574
Don't know why you guys asess that artistic "talent" or creativity is due to intelligence when there are so many autistics with iq's akin to a piece of aluminum that are considered prodigies.

>>2985605
intelligence = muh academics
there's multiple forms of intelligence.

>>2985636
What an idiotic retort, then there is no point at which any of your previous post should of gone on about spacial awareness. Not only have you muddled the line for what the cause of talent is nut you destroyed your own argument. Just as the other poster said, a person as dumb as a bag of rocks really can paint/draw well.

>>2985650
post your work

>>2985657
Won't post my work but I'll gladly list off the many examples of low iq artist:
Iris grace (5)
Amanda laMunyon (7)
David Barth (12)
Niam Jain (13)
Craig Roveta
Michael tolleson
Esther brokaw
Maria Iliou
Jessy Park
Ping lean yeak
Christophe pillault
George widener
Gilles trehin
Stephen Wiltshire
Grant manier
Remrov
Jeroen pomp
(Would post some amazing tumblr artist but I'm unsure about self diagnosing trend)
Michealangelo (suspected)
Pablo Picasso (suspected)

>>2985574
Well then how can anyone possibly post an example of a good artist who isn't intelligent if you will always assume the fact that they are good at art means they are intelligent, regardless of formal education?

File: weaselbro.jpg (142KB, 612x816px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 612x816px

>>2985377
>Normies are not the criteria for talented
>There is just no way someone could be this deluded
>This is not an usual piece to see in a public school art class
I don't think I am deluded, in my honest opinion my level is seen as talent among normies, and obviously NORMIES are the FUCKING NORM. It seems like I'm supposed to disregard normies because they don't matter... of course, talent deniers are not the most scientifically inclined, but this is hopeless.

You're telling me that my shit is bad and I'm not talented on the basis that you know more about drawing than me. And I bet you do, but I know as much about the average level of talent among the general population, as anyone else. I bet the shittiest person on this board is regarded as talented or at least has some potential by the normies. I was expecting a decent amount of shit, but this is ridiculous. I thrive on criticism tho, so this is just putting a fire under my ass. give me hell:

FROM LIFE
TAXIDERMY WEASEL

>>2985714
No one said to you that talent doesn't exist, just that you don't have one.

>>2985714
Dude I remember seeing that months ago
Have you not improved since then?

>>2985714
at this point you should realize that it doesn't matter what you say, /ic/ won't take you serious at that point

>>2985732
Yeah, and I think they are basing that on their experience with artists or people that draw, and not the average person. You should read my post. Personally I don't focus on myself having talent, as I feel it fucks with my perspective in a lot of ways. But I do think I am considered talented by the average person. But, people in here are so emotionally invested in this stuff, it's impossible to have a conversation about it. I regret posting my work because it is pretty lame to claim yourself to be talented, but as I said I am a believer in the "post work" meme and I am emotionally distanced enough to the concept of talent and skill that I feel I am able to have a more or less objective opinion about it. If people in here agree that talent exists, that's great, but it doesn't seem like it.

>>2985735
I barely draw! I don't have a lot of work to post.
>>2985747
You're right

>>2985765
Talent has nothing to do with average though, it's not up to them to decide

>>2985714
Okay I think I see where you're being retarded.

Talent is the ability to pick things up faster than normal. Meaning with some work they'll be better than a "normal" person putting in an equal amount of work.

Normies don't put any work into art whatsoever. So any normie that decides to pick up a pen and spend a month doing art will be vastly superior to the rest of the normies.

This doesn't make them talented unless in that month they've improved more than other normies who've put a month into art.

>>2985791
artistic talent is more than just "the ability to pick things up faster than normal" you have to have the initial desire and interest in art in the first place. someone can breeze through all the fundementals of art and "learn it" and then never pick up a pencil again because they have no desire to create art. bill gates or some mensa genius couldn't do what KJG could do if they tried for decades just because they could in theory pick up on the subject matter quickly.

>>2985799
No, see now you're just a fucking retard.
Just stop thinking, stop doing anything, just sit on a coach and eat your potato chips because you're a fucking retard in every meaning of the word.

>>2985803
I guarantee I'm a better artist than you.

>>2985791
>Okay I think I see where you're being retarded.
finally!

I agree with most of what you're saying, but remember that people acquire very different skills through simply living a life, such as observational skills, eye for detail, etc. thousands of different strategies or skills are being cultivated in you from the day you were born. And they influence what you're gonna be good at.

Anyone that cries about talent deserves to be left behind in the race for improvement.
Does it exist? Maybe, for all you know until you make it you are either a talented person or not, either way you are going to have to work hard.

Talent is not a "magic cloud" that boosts people up just because they happened to be lucky enough to get god's gift of skill, Talent is at best an affinity for something and an easier start for a novice rather than a magic power that gives newborn babies the ability to draw.

And either way if you complain about talent you are never going to make it. Do you want to succeed despite of not being """"talented""""? Then work twice as hard
>b-but he made the same progress in half the time!!!
How can you hope to improve on your work if you can't stop focusing on the improvement of others? Be the best by yourself and for yourself, we all have stepping stones, some more than others, if you are going to let them stop you because someone had less trouble getting to the top than you never deserved getting there in the first place.

>>2986010
There is no god if there was ever a god then he would not allow the the emoji movie to exist

>>2986032
It's not the movie we need, but the one we deserve

>>2983947
What IRC is this? Does it still exist or has it moved to discord

>>2986010
My thing is just that talent is so fucking obvious, you have to be coated in a pretty thick layer of personal bias to deny it. And I can't stand that kind of people. They bring nothing but confusion to the world, obscuring reality to suit their ego.

Michael Jackson was 5 or 6 when he started in the Jackson 5. And that is just ONE example. You have to be insane if you explain away MJ's talent with bullshit like "a musical upbringing" or what the hell you guys dream up in your deliriums.

Now, multiply that insanity with as many exceptional artists or other people with amazing skill we all know about in our common history, and you're pretty far gone. It's flat earther level of delusion. I agree that a lot of famous artists and skilled people have learned their trade the hard way, but not all. Not the ones that are genius level at 5 fucking years old.

>>2986252
What a fucking meme of post you made.

The Jackson 5 were hot for 5 minutes, and they are only remembered today because of Michael Jackson, J5 was nothing but an start on showbizz for MJ.

MJ started to make a name of his own about 10 years (ten years) (ten) once he became a solo artist, he was revolutionary, fresh and a great musician, talent? Of course, but he worked for his success, it didn't came on him from magic. Just look at Chuck Berry, after being a great musician he went to shit despite of being often called the Father of Rock Music.

Either way this comparison sucks, music and drawing are not the same thing, MJ, The Beatles, etc all worked hard but admitively maybe not as hard as other, less successful artists. But in history there's not a single one legendary artist that did not work his ass off to become the best. Check this small documentary about Da Vinci's life, despite of being skilled and dedicating his life to art he only became popular after 40 years of work.

https://vimeo.com/84022735

>>2986252
I think success shouldn't really be a measure of talent either. Talent surely exists, but success is measured more by connections and luck than by your skill or ability.

>>2986262
Exactly the kind of insanity I was talking about.
Magnus Carlsen, youngest chess grandmaster in history at 13.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fw9BVi8bdU

Please, tell me how he isn't talented LOL

There's a lot of these, let's see your breaking point.

>>2986263
success is only a factor right now, because that's how we know about these people.

>>2986267
>implying I'm denying talent
All I'm saying it's that being a self defeating faggot because you didn't get a free pass to success it's pathetic.

People like Magnus are 1 in about a billion (also, chess is not an art equivalent either), if you are going to let his success stop you from getting into chess then you might as well fucking kill yourself, you are a failure.

>>2986274
why the hell would I let anyone's success or failure stop me from doing what I want to do? It is totally possible to be great without having obvious talent. Not that I have any need to be great at every activity I spend time on. I do things because I like to do them. Talent is totally irrelevant.

>>2986274
>>2986281
Let me re-phrase that.

>being a self defeating faggot because you didn't get a free pass to success it's pathetic.
I agree!

>>2986283
but that's exactly what I said

>>2986285
Yes, and I agree with your last post. So we're good.

So according to this thread it's not that I'm not talented it's just that everyone else is smarter than me? Great.

>>2984347
I love you

>t. People who ought to be locked in portable toilets and set on fire.

>>2981584
Whenever this meme comes up you just have to look at bodybuilding to shut it down. Your genetic ceiling for muscle growth and appearance is set in stone the moment you're born. No amount of hard work can overcome your genetics. No amount of hard work can cause your muscle to insert onto your bone in a different, more visually pleasing fashion. The same is true of any talent. You're born with a genetically predisposed ceiling, and that's the end of the discussion.

>>2981584
People are born different thats why some people are fucking stupid when they get to the point of wanting to get better at art and other people growing up observing the nature of things closely, having a good understanding of the forces that are applied in everyday life, and thinking in a mentality that makes them aware of the spaces their in, in terms of distance, area, etc.

and then some people grow up focusing on nothing and grow into unaware shitheads and want to suddenly learn about all these things that are needed to succeed in art or even any other profession

>>2981504
Have you seen the level of stuff FZD applicants churn out? It's garbage, and the average age is 25 years. If they had this kind of shit mentality, they'd just sign themselves off as ""talentless"".
Talent exists, but no artist ever became famous and successful because of it, ever.

>>2986435
>You're born with a genetically predisposed ceiling, and that's the end of the discussion.
That's a terrible thing to say, especially since there's no way to prove it.
It's not the same with art as it is with sports. If you wanna be a height jumper and you have 5 feet, you're screwed. If you want to be a biologist, you just have to sit down and study a lot.
Bruce Lee had a pretty terrible genetic disposition for sports, but he didn't give a shit and became the greatest fighter in the history.

There's one talent we all have, and that's the ability to change, that's why we are at the top of the evolution chain. We might have more of this talent than any other species in the galaxy yet you seem to underestimate it so much, why?

>>2986435
The thing that morons like you don't seem to think through when making these comparsions is that there isn't anything in art that's that difficult to learn to begin with. So every non-retarded person automatically fulfills the genetic requirement to get good.

Every single fundamental of art is a fairly easy concept in a vacuum that any average middle schooler could learn. Anyone can learn perspective, anyone can memorize muscles, bones and anatomy, anyone can learn the properties of color and light and how they interact with forms. Anyone can learn to draw cubes in perspective. It only becomes complex when you try to put it all together and more importantly, when you combine it with actual creativity. That's where the real "talent" lies. Having to juggle your creativity and all those seemingly easy concepts at once becomes very hard work and not many people can do that.

>>2986516
>That's a terrible thing to say, especially since there's no way to prove it.
Actually basically every heritablity study and large scale genomics project seems to be 'proving' this currently. In the next few decades as we start going into big data territory with multiple millions of genomes and correlations with traits. Expect to see multiple research articles "proving" what we already know to be true.

>if you want to be a biologist, you just have to sit down and study a lot.
You realize intelligence and ability is also genetically based and essentially set in stone, right?

>There's one talent we all have, and that's the ability to change, that's why we are at the top of the evolution chain. We might have more of this talent than any other species in the galaxy
Are you on drugs right now?

>>2987947
Those studies only tell you that certain demographics have inclinations that might guide their future life choices.
You said that
>You're born with a genetically predisposed ceiling
which implies some people just can't get better at art beyond some point. Why, do they only have a capacity to read a certain amount of books and practice for a certain amount of hours? What happens after that, do they stop improving despite consistent practice?
Sounds like a load of shit, m8.

>intelligence and ability is also genetically based and essentially set in stone
Intelligence is diverse and dynamic, your brain is an ever-changing tool that develops new connections or softens its cortex depending on how and how much you use it.
It has its base in genetics, but the phrase "set in stone" is completely out of place here.

And our body does have the ability to change and adopt. In 20 years, you can be a bodybuilder, a scientist or a fucking poet, only if you set it as your goal and consistently work towards it.
Which you (or I) probably won't, but that's a different story.

>>2987947
>You realize intelligence and ability is also genetically based and essentially set in stone, right?

Defeatist losers like yourself should really just walk into the ocean or something and be done with it. If you really think that no matter what you do, you can't possibly get better at anythijng unless you were born gifted, then your life is beyond sad and pathetic and your beliefs that you can never achieve anything because you aren't talented will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

File: 1482081936001.png (78KB, 694x674px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 694x674px

the only thing you can really attribute to talent is creativity. it is something you can't really train your brain to do.
pretty much all the other aspects of art can be trained. you can teach anyone who isn't a cripple or mentally handicapped to do proper brush and pen strokes, you don't need talent just training.
art isn't like sports, in sports your physical build comes into play so no matter how much a manlet trains for basketball he will never beat lanklet who has also been training just as hard.

the people who are advocating talent seem to be 2 types
a) defeatists with no ego who blame a force outside of their control for why they are not seeing success
b) over confident people who are stroking there own ego thinking they are special from everyone else

>>2986252
MJ was trained to the point of abuse by his father who have had other kids to practice on.

>How Michael Jackson's father Joe whipped him if he missed a note

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1195847/How-Michael-Jacksons-father-Joe-whipped-missed-note.html

You guys ever watched a behind the scene as to how someone became so talented? 100%, it's really fuckin depressing.

File: medieval art.jpg (951KB, 700x869px) Image search: [Google]

951KB, 700x869px

Way back in the Medieval era everyone drew like shit, only when the Renaissance came did people start observing things in the real world from which perspective and figure drawing started developing. If talent exists then why didn't art improve at all for almost all of European human history until that time period?

>>2988203
Bc they invented oil paint.

>>2988175
Don't stress, anon.
Analytical people have a different approach from creative people, but both approaches can lead to equally good and meaningful ideas.
Analytical even might have an advantage, because their process is more controlled and isn't inspiration's bitch to fuck with.

You can steal an idea and put it in a different context, combine two ideas and let that combination inspire you, or take an idea and do the opposite of it, creating an entirely new idea.
Those are the examples of copy, combine and transform, the basic tools of creativity - a bit like straight, C and S curves for line drawing, or sphere, box and cylinder for form drawing.

Use them to generate one part of your story - a character, a setting or an object. Then ask yourself what kind of conflict could arise from it being the way it is.

>Example - Tarzan:
>1. Setting - jungle.
>2. Conflict - conflict between jungle and civilization
>3. Outcome - criticism of civilization and its ignorance to jungle (nature)
Then you can design your characters to fit that narrative. Or design the characters first and reverse-engineer the setting, or a combination of these (or completely different) approaches.

>>2988203
It's tied to the tools people had.

Even in later periods having access to colors was still an issue. Green pigments often turned out to be poisonous. The most popular white was made from lead and was banned. Black had to be produced "by burning animal bones in an air-free chamber" and was never quite right. Then there was stuff like brushes and canvases.

It's not that people didn't observe things before the renaissance era.

>>2988175
>a) defeatists with no ego who blame a force outside of their control for why they are not seeing success
>b) over confident people who are stroking there own ego thinking they are special from everyone else
you forgot c) rational people

I'm not advocating talent, it's just there. Michael Jackson was famous at the age of 5, mozart wrote pieces for piano at the age of 5, you have to be an idiot not to acknowledge the extistence of talent.

>>2988211
>>2988217
things like perspective were not fully understood before the Renaissance when italian artist began to intensely study perspective and then write thesis on the subject and teach it to other artists.
it was not just technological advancements and did not focus solely on painting.

the breakthrough in Renaissance art has more to do with the fact that it was a period of prosperity which allowed people to focus on things like art. when the black death wipes out 2/3s of the continent nobody gives a shit about art, when your country is enjoying unprecedented prosperity people can focus and study on the arts.

>>2988179
Another contestant has appeared!!

>MJ was trained to the point of abuse by his father who have had other kids to practice on.

1 down, thousands to go.

NEXT UP:

Magnus Carlsen
Youngest Grand Master of chess in history at age of 13.
Almost guaranteed not to have had an abusive father or an abnormal upbringing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fw9BVi8bdU

How is he not talented?

LOL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_child_prodigies

A LIST OF CHILD PRODIGIES

If you think all of these were the result of hard work, you are simply a moron and can't be helped.

>>2988254
people have already pointed out in this thread that MJ was trained relentlessly by his dad, not really an argument of talent vs training when your training consists of your dad beating the shit out of you if you fuck up. and he wasn't famous, the jackson 5 did not see much success and you his 5 minutes of lime light in the jackson 5 pales in comparison to his solo career.
>mozart wrote pieces for piano at the age of 5
yeah so? they were simple and repetitive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i-SzzhUtws
not really that extraordinary when your dad is a composer who is teaching you composition.
again it comes down to starting at a young age and having your family who is in the music industry train you. if mozarts dad wasn't a composer and he started his music career at a later age all of a sudden his "god given talent" would be missing

>>2988260
just do 5 seconds of google
he started at a young age and learned by training with repetition and memorization. he doesn't have a psychic gift or anything, he studied the combinations and mesmerized them. he was then coached at a young age by a grand master in chess.

all your child prodigies for non-physical activities are the result of steadfast training at a young age and coaching through a master.

>>2988254
The human brain hasn't evolved over the last 2k years and understanding perspective is neither a secret or hard despite the impression some faggots here could give you. In 240 B.C., the Greek astronomer Eratosthenes made the first good measurement of the size of Earth by noting the angles of shadows in two cities. (Yes, from before people thought the earth was flat.) That right there require some pretty good abstract thinking.

But think about it this way. You need to practice. When the average artist don't have precious resources to waste on trying out stuff then they settle for less. And the average person was just as easily impressed by flawed art then as they are today.

>>2988274
this feels like I gave a labrador a treat locked inside an impossible puzzle box. I'm sorry buddy, but this game has to end. thank you for playing.

>>2988281
You know the saying "the more you learn the less you know"? You are like some kid who have just started learning and now thinks he knows everything based on the very little flawed stuff he has read.

>>2988289
Ignore the retards in this thread, if they want to stroke their ever crumbling ego, let them. Talent is a way for them to make an excuse on why their art is garbage.

>>2988321
>Talent is a way for them to make an excuse on why their art is garbage

Because no one in human history has ever used talent to explain why they themselves were good. And admitting someone has a greater natural affinity doesn't mean you can't eventually reach their level.

>>2988274
>Michael Jackson the person who vastly excelled past the other members of his family that were also
trained relentlessly by his dad, is somehow and example on why talent doesn't exist.

These people weren't the only ones trained from early childhood. It's always been the norm to start as early as possible. Do you seriously think Motzart's father was the only composer to teach their children?

>>2981504
i think talent must be a thing because people who suck talk about it so much. like if people weren't starting off better than them i think they'd have some other anxiety to go on about. i think it's harder to see if you do have some natural ability though.

although..i have met lots of people with a natural flair for something that i've been a bit jelly of (i remember a guy i knew who was much better at designing UIs) and i never lamented how they had been given more talent than me. often you can catch up pretty quickly if you take their advice and try work out what they're doing that makes their way better anyway.

so actually idk.

>>2981504

this comic is fully fucking retarded...

>>2988422
It's hopeless. You could dangle a banana in front of these people and they would say it is just a strawberry with a lot of practice.

>>2988274
>he started at a young age and learned by training with repetition and memorization.
millions of kids have done this before him
>he doesn't have a psychic gift or anything
...
>he studied the combinations and mesmerized them.
Help me, jesus.
>he was then coached at a young age by a grand master
Perhaps because he was very TALENTED!?

>>2988203
Wow, one of the dumbest posts I've seen on /ic/, congrats. First off figurative art hadn't been invented. Secondly this is not a bad picture, nor is medieval art in general bad, it has good design/layout/composition/silhouettes etc. Thirdly the classical world produced realistic aka ""good"" art but the techniques were lost for several hundred years.

>>2988407
Talent doesn't exist in the art field, it literally doesn't. It's not something that was an evolutionary advantage. People can continuesly disagree in this thread on what makes up talent and it just proves further that even if "talent" existed, it wouldn't really matter at all. The only reason why there are prodigies in fields such as chess, athletics, etc. is due to the fact that these traits were necessary for survival. For example http://www.underwateraudio.com/blog/makes-perfect-swimmer-body/ factors such as these will affect how well you swim. However with something such as the arts, everyone is born with the innate skills to be able to draw something. A prodigy in art is only good due to parenting and work ethics (as well as how the brain is wired at young ages) , also do you ever hear about these said prodigies when they grow up? No, they are a statistical rarity in itself and most fade away in relevancy as they get older. It is not difficult at all to start from scratch and be able to draw (yes to that one poster in the thread is mediocre no matter what your mommy tells you) well in a year or two.

>>2988422
>Do you seriously think Motzart's father was the only composer to teach their children?

A lot of parents are like that. Most kids break under the expectations. Those who stick with the craft tends to become exceptional and often with weird mental issues.

>>2988478
>>2988505
your attempts at connecting this with evolution are ridiculous. The entire thing called a "human being" has evolved! There isn't a single part of you that hasn't evolved and is a direct result of evolution.

>durr, mah legs evolved so i can run from da lions
>errr, mah hands evolved so I can eat da food
>uhm, mah brains evolved so I can play chess
>burrrr, da "ability to do art" didn't evolve and is exactly the same in everyone!

sorry for being a jackass. I'm just triggered.

>>2988584
Second one isn't me, and yes of course everything has evolved that's very much stating the obvious. However some things are not necessary for human survival. The reason why I used body types as an example is due to the fact it greatly impacts the chances of an animal to produce offspring. there is far more variation in body type and intellectual capacity. This is especially more exemplified in the male gender. For example men's iq deviate far more from the average than the female counterpart. There are more idiots and geniuses on the male side as compared to women who do not have much variation. Now the reason I bring this up is, yes people do evolve, but some things don't change as their is no need for it in producing offspring. A women in ancient times did not need to have variation in intelligence as much as men as they took part in nurturing, rather than hunting.. This is also the reason why women tend to not be colorblind and can see more variations of red as they picked berries and fruits and also had to look out for predators when taking care of offspring. Painting is very unnecessary for producing offspring. There are also many basic traits such as motor skills where their is no need for genetic deviation in order to produce offspring. Again, talent does not exist in this field, you are very unlikely to be born with an advantage in it. even if you had an advantage it would be so minuscule it would not affect your skill in art at all. That is my point.

>>2988608
I don't think I can wrestle all this momentum of stupid onto the right track, but I'll give you some clues.

painting is not an isolated skill, it is a combination of many skills, each of which has an evolutionary basis.

There is nothing in you that isn't there for evolutionary reasons.

If "some things don't change, because they're not needed" in a species, they go away to make room for useful stuff.

Talent is real.

>>2988629
reread my comment, notice the word deviation? You are either very airheaded, 12, or a troll.

>>2988629
Also pardon for samefagging, but I also did not state at all painting was an isolated skill. As you see I said there are many basic skills necessary for art such as motor skills. Also that is a misconception, evolution isn't perfect. Things don't just go away. Even then that wasn't my point in my argument, my point was that extreme changes are unnecessary,

>>2988634
if you're a retard, I'm gonna skim your posts. that's just how it is.

>There are also many basic traits such as motor skills where their is no need for genetic deviation in order to produce offspring

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, so please elaborate.

>>2988639
>extreme changes are unnecessary,
talent is not an extreme change in your genetics. I actually have no idea what you're theory is.

>>2988641
>>2988659
Don't bother arguing then if you don't even have a basic understanding of genetics.
>"There is nothing in you that isn't there for evolutionary reasons"
>"If "some things don't change, because they're not needed" in a species, they go away to make room for useful stuff."

>>2988584
You are obviously an idiot. I don't see what any of that has to do with how kids taught by strict ambitious parents turn out.

>>2988695
I was replying to the post above yours, but I made the mistake of assuming the two retarded posts next to each other was made by the same retard.

>>2988684
If I understood you correctly, you claim that talent can be found in "athletics, chess, etc" because these skills have an evolutionary basis. But "painting" does not have any evolutionary significance, so it is equal in everybody.

Is that right?

>>2988728
>But "painting" does not have any evolutionary significance, so it is equal in everybody.

Painting skill is based on fine motor skills, hand eye coordination, and attention to detail. All of which are required for tool crafting. And cave painting was the precursor to written language because it allowed early man to exchange information with 2 dimensional symbols.

>>2988728
No, just the variation in the traits are so insignificant that even if someone where to have an advantage in one or more traits that it wouldn't matter or impact your art skills greatly. This is why talent is simply non existent in art, there is not enough deviation in the skills that compose it for someone to be better when they are born . Either way it doesn't matter, arguing with someone like you is useless. Again confirmation bias has clouded your vision and you don't even bother to research in anything you have discussed in this topic. You literally have pulled everything out of your ass and then move the goal post when you are proven wrong.

>>2988724
The only posts that stand out by shared retardation here is yours.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEK0GIl_dsw

Aight talent is real, let's all go home guys

>>2988769
your description of me is eerily close to my description of you...

Well, you are the retard here, nonetheless, and if you think the "variation of traits" needed to result in what we call talent, is too great to be evolutionary useful, you are mistaken, because the variation needed is almost insignificant in relation to the human machine as a whole. There are lots of differences in people and let's say a hundred beneficial combinations of tiny deviations will result in a perceived enormous advantage in a skill. Let's just say that neither of us know what we're talking about here, but that you are way worse than me. grab a book sometime and you might learn something.

>>2988851
talent is real, but why would that stop me from doing what I enjoy?

The talent deniers seem to think that the existence of talent has an enormous significance for their own activity as people. It's pretty obvious which side has the emotional bias.

>muh pseudo science
maybe its genetic, maybe its upbringing, maybe its because your mom listened to classical music while fucking your dad. it doesn't matter
at the end of the day some people will be better than you at art.

In no way is this saying you shouldn't try, because everyone can get to a very good level just with hardwork and training. But pretending there won't be people who are just naturally better than you is silly. Just accept you're not going to be the best and just do the things you enjoy, because other people enjoy the same things you do and eventually it'll lead you to success.

>>2988877
Nope, you have absolutely zero understanding and moved the goal post yet again. Look up the statistical data on traits such as motor skills etc. There is no deviation. If you knew anything about statistics , you would know that it's so insignificant that concepts such as talent shouldn't exist and don't actually matter no effects an individual. At least your last post makes sense. Talent is irrelevent even if it was real.

File: image.jpg (115KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 680x680px

>>2988916
Anon you cant be serious hes obviously trolling hes been doing this the whole thread ...
even if he was serious just let him pretend he has the upper hand

>>2988887
stop making excuses already. The only thing that has come close to matching the description of talent is being a faster learner and that is something that is a universal benefit, not a talent for something specific.

Environment/emotional state, diet, experience, motivation, distractions, sleep pattern... these are all examples of things that affects you learning and performance.

>>2988916
WELL WELL WELL

I made a quick 5 second google on motor skills and genetics and found this SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE that reviews mssive amounts of empirical data to see if PRACTICE explains differences in skill level AND IT DOES NOT.

Deliberate Practice and Performance in Music, Games, Sports, Education, and Professions: A meta study

Conclusion:

"...their claim that individual differences in
performance are largely accounted for by individual differences
in amount of deliberate practice is not supported
by the available empirical evidence."

Numbers:

"We found that deliberate practice explained
26% of the variance in performance for games, 21% for music, 18% for sports, 4% for education, and less than 1% for
professions. We conclude that deliberate practice is important, but not as important as has been argued."

Inb4 "they didn't include drawing"

link to article
http://sci-hub.cc/10.1177/0956797614535810

>>2988962
>Inb4 "they didn't include drawing"
but they didn't

>>2988962
You searched something completely different from what I was talking about. You googled for 5 seconds (probably practice does not make you good at etc... (which I wasn't even talking about?))and again you used confirmation bias to choose a random article you found online. Look at the citations and the references. You can easily find studies that argue the opposite with the same data. Also your link doesn't load but I found that it was peer reviewed and oh boy (... but it left a much larger amount unexplained. evaluation of our research is undercut by contradictions, omissions, and errors"). Again search the opposite of what you searched and you will find many articles saying the opposite.

>>2988988
no, they didn't. But the article makes it extremely likely that this is the case in all fields. If you disagree, I would very much like to know why art should be an exception to this research. feel free to use peer reviewed research to back up your claims, like I did.

>>2988995
I googled "motor skills genetic" and came across a blog by a juggler who had dug up this article in order to answer the question of practice being all it takes.

A juggler.

Fine motor skills.

Drawing and painting.

Connections connectinnng

>>2988962
did you seriously use someone's school project to defend your claim?

>>2989004
juggling and art are pretty fucking different though

>>2989005
yes, I did. Princeton, Michigan state and Rice University to be exact.

Deliberate Practice and Performance in
Music, Games, Sports, Education, and
Professions: A Meta-Analysis

Brooke N. Macnamara1, David Z. Hambrick2, and
Frederick L. Oswald3
1
Princeton University; 2
Michigan State University; and 3
Rice University

>>2989004
>>2988995
You are genuinely autistic, no joke. There's no way someone could be this dense, you are definitely messing around. First a garbage "study" and now some juggler's blog?

>>2989005
link to the study, published in 2014 Psychological Science OnlineFirst.

http://sci-hub.cc/10.1177/0956797614535810

Inb4 it doesn't matter if it turned out to be peer reviewed science, you'll deny it still.

>>2989013
I was explaining to the anon how I came across the study.

>>2989015
It was actually rejected and just look at the citations.
>>2989005
It's very sloppy too this guy's the definition of classy.

You guys should look into microdosing.

Was introduced by it from a silicon valley friend. You can see the improvements when taking it.

Also, I feel one of the problem is art is grind sometimes. You want to draw, but then you are like this is a grind. But, now that is gone. Not only that, but I think I can visualize stuff better now. Through I use more references now.

>>2989030
microdosing on what? Seems iffy, it's like the electrical Brain shock therapy. I looked at a peer reviewed article myself and what I found interesting is you get better results from practicing if you take longer breaks in between that's pretty cool to know. I use to always have the problem of drawing for hours constantly but I improved alot when I started taking longer breaks in between. Another tip I would give is don't overwork yourself.

>>2989026
yeah, that's what I get for trying to use sci-hub in an online argument. You're pretty classy, yourself.

>>2989051
Yeah the site is a great source However you should always look into the papers fully and read them when using the site. (Sci hub does not check the validity of a paper it has far too much data to sift through to do that for you) whether Especially as outdated as that particular study was.

File: NotEvenOnce.jpg (139KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1200x1200px

>>2989030
> LSD
> but in small doses

There may be optimal ways to learn things, but I'll pass on that one, thank you.

>>2989062
>outdated
it's from 2014

where did you see it was rejected btw?

>>2989065
I really hope you don't think a 3 year old paper simply compiling data is recent. Also reread my previous comment.

>>2989072
Yes, I think it's recent. And I bet the vast majority would agree that 3 year old research on practice vs level of skill is well within reason. Your scientific norms might be getting in your way if you disagree.

It's in the citations? You wrote "It was actually rejected and just look at the citations."

>>2989078
No.

File: 1483249755954.jpg (44KB, 510x766px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 510x766px

>>2989080

>>2981584
>why one person learned something faster than other people.
Yeah that exactly what talent is, dumbass.

>>2989227
>one person learned something faster than other people
>Yeah that exactly what talent is

No that's just called being smarter. Talent implies a natural aptitude for a specific field. Like in OP's drawing somebody who is born with knowledge of a field and starts at a higher state. It's getting all metaphysical in here...

>>2989253
>being smarter

A lot of good artists are dumb as shit though, barely fluent in their own native language. I think you're mistaken.

>>2989264
Maybe they just got there by normal hard work.

>>2989253
it's just extremely convoluted now. how about it's either you're a shit artist or you aren't.

>>2989282
That's hard to disagree with when you just talk about the present. But wasn't that subjective anyway? Different tastes, different goals and SJW feelings or am I not keeping up.

>>2988175
>the only thing you can really attribute to talent is creativity. it is something you can't really train your brain to do.
I didn't even bother reading the rest since what you said it's shit

when i was little out of boredom I used to imagine scenarios and stories and tools and characters. then I stopped once I got older and school starter occupying all my time and had to time left to get bored

once I got out of school and got a boring job so that I can train my drawing skills at work, i started doing the same as when I was little

at first it was hard to come up with ideas, but after a while, just like when I was a kid, watching a movies was enough to help me come up with scenarios, characters and tools/ armors weapons for an entire day

from now on it's all rinse and repeat until I git gud

File: moreGI.jpg (126KB, 740x524px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 740x524px

>>2985182
thats more like insane habitual drawing and a decent memory trained to do one thing really well. It was mentioned somewhere that when he was younger he was filling 25-50 pages in his sketchbooks a day; not with studies, but observational and imaginary pictures that pushed his boundaries. couple that with a formal art education and working in the industry for years and you have the god we see today. I guess for arguments sake you could say that his talent was his work ethic/passion, but I think a good portion of his skill comes from the fact that he has probably been drawing for thousands more hours than most professionals, and that his style gives the best quality for the least amount of time spent per picture so he has drawn more in those hours than the few artists that have invested as much time as him.

>>2988962
>Deliberate Practice and Performance in Music, Games, Sports, Education, and Professions: A meta study
>Conclusion:
>"...their claim that individual differences in
>performance are largely accounted for by individual differences
>in amount of deliberate practice is not supported
>by the available empirical evidence."
>Numbers:
>"We found that deliberate practice explained
>26% of the variance in performance for games, 21% for music, 18% for sports, 4% for education, and less than 1% for
>professions. We conclude that deliberate practice is important, but not as important as has been argued."
>Inb4 "they didn't include drawing"
>link to article
>http://sci-hub.cc/10.1177/0956797614535810

>>2981633
Ding. You are great at what is constantly on your mind and what you naturally tend to do.

Someone without talent for drawing, is like an introvert going to a party. It drains them.

>>2981723

INTELLIGENCE = How easily one's brain learns new stuff. Mostly genetic. Some brains are more efficient than others.

But it's not all genetic! The biggest variable is *using* info. The more it's used, and the more ways, the better it's learned.


TALENT = How easily one acquires a new skill. Intelligence, plus physical learning. Largely genetic.

But it's not all genetic! The biggest variable is repetition. The more it's done, the better it's learned. And the more skills are learned, the easier it gets to learn new ones.


CREATIVITY = How easily one's brain connects disparate concepts to learn from itself. Mostly genetic. Intelligence, plus some have more connective cells to do it with.

But it's not all genetic! The biggest variable is active thinking. The more pieces one pulls from different memories, the more one sees how they fit together, the easier it is to make unexpected connections.


So that's where >>2981628 gets it right. The biggest variable for all of these is INTEREST. (Not motivation. You can be strongly motivated, but not interested.)

A girl who's interested in piano will mess around with it and experiment and doodle on it because it's fun or it rewards her curiosity. She'll get tons more experience than a less-interested kid. Just farting around she'll be using the info, repeating the actions, and actively figuring things out. And if she's given useful lessons, she'll advance faster than an equally-intelligent kid because she'll put in tons more time practicing. Except she won't think of it as practicing, but playing, enjoying herself. If she's made to do a little work on top of the play, and practice even more (without killing her interest), she'll shoot ahead.

Art's the same. Any other learned thing is the same. Sure, some people are born with genetic advantages others don't have. But the most important thing is using what you do have.

why even bother? your neuroplasticity is almost completely gone after your late teens, early twenties and any changes aftherwards are superficial, minor and temporary.

Constant practice with no skill will end you with tons and tons of acumulated inane garbage.

>>2990163
>your neuroplasticity is almost completely gone after your late teens

I think you're mistaken here, it's the number or neurons which are greatly diminished when reaching adulthood, recent findings indicate at the contrary that neuroplasticity continues to be a thing way later than previously thought.

>>2981504
did he delete the original twitter post?

>>2990158
>How easily one acquires a new skill.

No. You don't have a "talent". The claim is always that you have a talent for some specific field.

It's implied that talent is a person who have a predisposition in one area compared to their average performance in other areas. It comes from earlier ideas of being favored by gods and doesn't really match our understanding of the brain and psychology today.

It always have been and still is a bullshit excuse.

>>2990226

This is from a study on practice vs skill. They found that practice correlates to skill at a rate of ~20%. What do you think the last 80% is?

"...their claim that individual differences in
performance are largely accounted for by individual differences
in amount of deliberate practice is not supported
by the available empirical evidence."

"We found that deliberate practice explained
26% of the variance in performance for games, 21% for music, 18% for sports, 4% for education, and less than 1% for
professions. We conclude that deliberate practice is important, but not as important as has been argued."

http://sci-hub.cc/10.1177/0956797614535810

>>2990226
>It always have been and still is a bullshit excuse.
here we go again with the emotional bias. Talent deniers always have some emotional stress connected to the idea of talent. Hence the denial.

>>2990281
>>2990287
And how does your article contradict anything in the post you quote? No one here have said that there aren't some who have an easier time learning stuff.

Your article doesn't cover talent vs intelligence and it's pretty useless in this discussion.

I suggest you take a look at the image in the OP and see how he defines talent.

Then take a look at >>2981633
to understand what really leads to "talent".

Not gonna read the whole thread because I'm drunk. Just wanna say that I've been in the biz for 11 years and I've never met anyone better that didn't work harder than me.
Work trumps talent any fucking day, friends.Always and forever.

File: 1495484472381[1].png (202KB, 540x390px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 540x390px

>>2983802
just how butthurt can this guy get?

>>2981584
Talent does exist. To be blunt, it sounds sour grapes from someone who doesn't have much, when they claim it doesn't exist.

Talent isn't speed, or effort. Talent is a unique way of seeing things, and expressing them. Talent is what makes a dull, pointless exercise of xeroxing what you see onto paper, into art.
I have talent. My experiences in school and professionally shows it. I look at the world a little differently, and I have a talent for taking someone's words, and making images out of them. Not everyone can do that. Other people have other talents, like my friend in college who had a photographic memory, and could draw anything he'd seen, and then improve it. (He was a scary-talented person, who went on to do something creative but wasn't art.) I knew another guy who could draw a single line, and make it a figure. He blew us all away in figure drawing, and he got a full ride at a prestigious private art school just from his work in that one class.
The cold hard truth is, a lot of the people here will never "make it" as an artist, because they simply have no talent at it. They'll be hobbyists, and there's no shame in that - for every professional guitarist, there are a million hobbyists.
No matter how hard you work, no matter how many hours you grind, you'll never have that extra, that defines the real artist, because you're not talented. Sucks to tell anyone that, but it's true. 95% of you will never work in a creative field. It's simply the way it is. You can deny talent doesn't exist all you want, but your denial won't get you hired as a conceptual artist, or hung on gallery walls.
Everyone can run. It's the people with talent for running, that win the Olympics. Anyone can sing, but only those with talent will get a record contract. Anyone can write, but only one with talent will have a best selling novel.
You will never overtake talent with time. It's not how it works.

>>2981588
Excuse me? Talented people put the hours in. Talent has to be trained, to learn discipline, and you have to build experience, like anyone else.
Talent is strange, sometimes a painting just happens effortlessly, but it's almost always from years of practice and experience that leads to being in fine tune with your talent, and you're running on all cylinders.

You just think it's easy, from the outside. You have no idea what led to the moment where they make it look easy.

>>2990299
This was actually a good response, too bad he didn't accept the criticism and never started trying new things

>>2981656
Nonsense. Our family has artists in it, on my mom's side. She was an artist, I'm an artist, I have cousins on that side who are artists, or musicians. We had artists and writers and musicians among our ancestors. My dad's side? None. They can't draw stick men. They're all engineers and accountants and things like that.

>>2990299
>>2983802
I think the owlturd guy is probably not that bad but just oversimplifies things for the sake of being a web comic and knowing his audience.

>>2988203

Economics, and how the European world was structured.

The Renaissance allowed for an economic climate to allow people to pursue art formally, in studios. Art is generally crude in gatherer/hunter societies - think cave paintings. The Renaissance saw a boom in wealth and prosperity, allowing a child to pursue science, or art, or whatever, instead of working on a farm or in a shop.

It's later on, when the society grows wealthy, and the survival of the community doesn't require the effort of everyone involved, that advances can be made in the arts - music, writing, art. Before the Renaiissance, just being able to read and write was a privilege of the upper upper classes - common folk were utterly ignorant, because serfs didn't need those skills to work the land and build things for their masters.

If you take some people, and keep them isolated from modern artistic techniques, you'd see them make the same kind of art.

Then, once you have a wide pool of people making the effort, the ones with talent will make discoveries and push it all forward.

Look at the 3rd world. You don't see many art students in South Africa, because they're too busy just surviving day to day. Pre-Renaissance Europe was the same.

Also, the art in the Renaissance was partly driven by the rediscovery of ancient Roman and Greek art that was being dug up or found and brought to Europe. Michelangelo's diaries talk about how he studied Greek and Roman statues learning to be a sculpture in the Medici palace.

>>2990294
The pic you're referring to suggests that the amount of practice is what matters, but to one it is hard work and to the other it is play.

The study directly contradicts this by showing that practice (whether it's pleasurable or not) only accounts for ~20% of your skill level.

practice correlates to skill level at a rate of 20%.

that leaves 80% that is not practice. Wouldn't you think that 80% is in all practical terms "talent"? Genes, aptitude, whatever makes up 80% of how good you are. That is talent.

If you have another interpretation, please share.

>>2988478
Drawing is a skill. Anyone can learn to draw what they see.

Drawing something that goes beyond that, that's where talent kicks in. That's what separates the hobbyists from the award winners.

You can neckbeard it all you want, but talent exists - especially in art, or any creative field.

Anyone can write a sentence. Not everyone can write a bunch of them, and have an award winning, best selling novel.

>>2990362
It has already been covered. There are so many factor that affect your learning. (Diet, personal conflicts, sleep patterns, etc) Besides, what you call talent other call other things.

This is what people normally mean when they say "talent" and this is what OP was showing when he asked the question:

>A special ability that allows someone to do something well

Talent could be associated with a physiology that allows you to run longer in dry terrain, an extra strong lung capacity.

In academic fields a condition like synesthesia could give you an advantage if you for example visualize numbers as landscapes. Or when painting if you can taste the color you see.

But those are not what you described. What you described could be attributed a lot of common factors where intelligence is just one.

File: lzherek4.jpg (67KB, 540x390px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 540x390px

>>2990362
>Wouldn't you think that 80% is in all practical terms "talent"?

It could also come from learning it at the optimal age, have psychological roots or be depending on other experiences which wired your brain in the best possible way.

Studies on hockey players showed that the champions shared similarities in how their parents let them play all kind of sports when young, then supported them when they chose to specialize in that sport. It seems to work better than taking a kid and making him specialize from a young age in a given sport.

Life is strange like that.

Does it matter though?
I'll side with /r9k/ on the issue of talent, smart but lazy is a meme, the only way to know how much talent you really have is to put in the hours and then discover the outcome.

>>2990385
I didn't describe anything, I just suggested what those 80% could be. If your suggestion is that diet, personal conflicts, sleep patterns, etc are what constitutes those 80% I find that highly unlikely. That must be some revolutionary diets and sleep patterns.

In any case, the question is if those 80% are individual differences or arbitrary differences like healthy routines etc, like you mentioned. Both could be true, but the latter seems highly unlikely. It implies that your skill level is 20% practice and 80% healthy routines...

>>2990388
>learning it at the optimal age, have psychological roots or be depending on other experiences which wired your brain in the best possible way.
Yes, that is a good point. It even says in the article that the tiny importance of practice in proffesions can be explained somewhat by differences in previous experience.

>>2990433
>are what constitutes those 80% I find that highly unlikely.

I said that it was all things combined. Diet, environment and sleep have a huge effect on learning. There have been done a lot of studies in this and industries have sprung up around it.

It's all a derail anyway. You are trying to define talent as something other than OP and then try to counter your own arguments.

File: bune.png (442KB, 573x597px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 573x597px

>>2983883
too much potential for sp/ic/y memes itt

>>2990447
source

File: 1408915210888.jpg (15KB, 320x290px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 320x290px

>>2984428
>Copied from photo
yeah eat shit dude
i'd be impressed if you did that from memory, though that'd probably also mean you're autistic

>>2990440
Okay, you might be right. There are a lot of factors we don't know about. Talent or not it doesn't matter, because we draw because we enjoy it, and we'll keep doing it as long as we want to.

>>2990496
scroll down to the weasel.

File: bune.gif (3MB, 550x527px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 550x527px

>>2990493
meesh's patreon

File: 123131241233.png (1MB, 1015x1285px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1015x1285px

>>2990299
Kinda of funny he saw that and created an image out of it. I'm more interested as to why he deleted pic related.

>>2990498
it's not very impressive, if you keep practicing you'll get gud tho

>>2990321
>The cold hard truth is, a lot of the people here will never "make it" as an artist, because they simply have no talent at it. They'll be hobbyists, and there's no shame in that - for every professional guitarist, there are a million hobbyists.
>No matter how hard you work, no matter how many hours you grind, you'll never have that extra, that defines the real artist, because you're not talented. Sucks to tell anyone that, but it's true. 95% of you will never work in a creative field. It's simply the way it is. You can deny talent doesn't exist all you want, but your denial won't get you hired as a conceptual artist, or hung on gallery walls.

Its sucks but good thing is that everyone have unique talent to something, there are no talentless persons

>>2990328

Word is he'd like to venture off and try different humor, but his DUDE RELATABILITY LMAO comics are most popular.

>>2990574
thank you

The reason why you don't see much science and public acceptance for the fact the structures we perceive as "talent" do exists is very similar to race related sciences.

When someones spatial intelligence can be pretty much objectively determined to be multiple standard deviations above another person its only reasonable to assume the may end up doing better than others at related practises such as "art".

Its unpopular and unwanted because it opens pandoras box on eugenics and will fuck up our "inclusive" society.

>>2990965
So how exactly are a talented person better at art? Better imagination? Better motivation? Those aren't talents but social variables. Drugs aren't talent either. Being good at studying is a discipline that can be taught so that's not a natural talent.

When you have shaved all the alternatives off there's no much left to make up for talent. Maybe a physical advantage would count.

>>2990965
>When someones spatial intelligence can be pretty much objectively determined to be multiple standard deviations above another person its only reasonable to assume the may end up doing better than others at related practises such as "art".

You can't objectively determine how that person got to the point where their spacial intelligence is above that of the other person though. Saying "It was a god-given talent, he was made that way at birth!" Is not scientific. Chances are, certain activities and experiences in their childhood helped shape the neural pathways that made the person better at spacial awareness. Then you have to test the effects of practice on both the talented and the untalented person and almost every time tests like these are made, the "untalented" test subjects have the exact same ability to improve as the talented ones.

File: Cata_Env026_MountHyjal2_web.jpg (313KB, 1728x864px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 1728x864px

>>2990321
>The cold hard truth is, a lot of the people here will never "make it" as an artist, because they simply have no talent at it.

The problem with this theory is that there are thousands upon thousands of very mediocre professional artists who /ic/ constantly trashes for being untalented hacks. You can't have it both ways. On one end, you like to pretend that the art industry only allows the most talented individuals to make a career out of it and on the other hand you keep whining about professional artists being hacks and having undeserving success despite their lack of technical skill.

I mean, we have threads along the lines of "Wow, so THIS is the level it takes to work for Capcom / Cartoon Network / Nintendo / Blizzard, what's your excuse for not working in the industry /ic/?" on a weekly basis.

>>2990965
holy shit a fucking REDPILL in this tread holy moly i am not joking

The denial in this thread lol

Talent exist. End of story.

People have different genes with different attributes. Some people are naturally more athletic without working out as much etc...

Life is unfair. Hard to swallow I know.

File: jordanlaughing_zpsfa0b44e7.gif (3MB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 200x200px

>>2981504
>this thread

File: C_ywphVUAAAB6I9.jpg (68KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 960x720px

You know, if you guys spent less time talking about talent and actually drawing, the idea of talent would literally be irrelevant.

>>2991210
Nope

>>2991195
Are you people genuinely retarded? Because you keep repeating the exact same argument based on the exact same strawman over and over. YES talent exists, you fucking moron. But does that stop you from reaching YOUR potential?

Is an average person unable to get fit through working out because he doesn't have the genetics to be an olympic gold medalist?

>>2991195
>Life is unfair. Hard to swallow I know.

Actually that's pretty easy to swallow. In fact, It's the easiest thing to blame your failure on a lack of talent and just whine about how unfair life is. You're as pathetic as a morbidly obese person saying they can't lose weight because muh genetics.

>>2990977
>certain activities and experiences in their childhood helped shape the neural pathways that made the person better at spacial awareness
EXACTLY!! You nailed the concept of talent. Mix in some good genes that make you predisposed to understand these things and you got it.
>Then you have to test the effects of practice on both the talented and the untalented person and almost every time tests like these are made, the "untalented" test subjects have the exact same ability to improve as the talented ones.
Now, this is going back to the retarded thinking again.

If you had 50 12-year olds and had to teach them perspective, do you actually think they would all learn at the same pace you retarded idiot?

I need a link to that article, please.

If you are really musically gifted, you will breeze through the beginner stuff OBVIOUSLY THATS TALENT. the same goes or everything else. math, sports, art... whatever. some people are useless with a football but amazing with a keyboard. NATURALLY. nothing to do with their lack of practice with a football, it's in their coding.

>>2991187
>i am not joking

That's the sad part as it's the biggest bluepill.

What you call talent is called experience. It can be gained through other things than hard work.


>If you had 50 12-year olds and had to teach them perspective, do you actually think they would all learn at the same pace

No, dumbass. Because some of them are smarter than the others. A talented person would be the dumb one who still did as well as the smart ones in that specific field but that would likely be attributed to that person already having an interest in that field.

>>2990965
This.

>This thread

>One side cry because they are too stupid and lazy to put in the work. Probably just in it for the fame and because it's the new trend.

>The other point out that they got to where they are through hard work/play and an interest in related topics.

>Then the first group say that it's "unfair because life hit them". But nobody cared.

>>2991372
It's the opposite, dumbfuck.
There are two categories of people who refuse to believe in talent. One is the group of people who are genuinely talented and have achieved a great deal of success in a short amount of time. You're not going to find them on /ic/. These people don't believe in talent because they refuse to believe that they have an unfair advantage over others, or because they're incapable of putting themselves in other people's shoes. You'll find a lot of genius level scientists who are deluded into thinking the same way, and believe anyone can become a Nobel Prize winning physicist if they just put in the work. Nevermind the fact that the average IQ for physics graduates is around 134.

The other group consists of people who have no talents. They've never experienced what it's like to improve in leaps and bounds, and to inherently understand things that other people struggle with, even when only put in a quarter of the work. People who actually have talent and have worked side by side by with large groups of people who don't, know for a fact that talent is real.

Of course, anyone who's not literally insane knows that talent is real. How fucking stupid do you have to be to deny talent in a world where we've mapped the human genome, and where we know that genes are responsible for most of our character traits?

>>2991402
>great success.

This is an anonymous board for art critique you retard. You have no idea who post here. Having success as an artist require a lot of skills where art skill is the least important. And if you think talent will make you win a nobel in physics then that just shows how little you know. Those are gained through team efforts and have to go through a hardly unbiased selection process.


>Nevermind the fact that the average IQ for physics graduates is around 134.

So are you saying they are talented at life? You need to fucking define what talent means, you birdbrain. Are you saying a person can't have a low IQ and still display what you would call a high talent in an academic field?


Let me say it to you straight: If you use "not having talent" as an excuse then you have the mentality of a loser and that's why you fail.

>>2991425
>You have no idea who post here.
Are you an idiot? I can tell who posts here by the art they post.

>And if you think talent will make you win a nobel in physics then that just shows how little you know.
Again, are you an idiot? I'm saying that a prerequisite to becoming a physicist is being intelligent. That doesn't mean you don't have to work hard.

>Are you saying a person can't have a low IQ and still display what you would call a high talent in an academic field?
Depends how you define "academic field". If you're talking about the natural sciences or engineering, then no, it's not possible if you're not intelligent.

>If you use "not having talent" as an excuse then you have the mentality of a loser and that's why you fail.
No one says this, you absolute moron. It's just a strawman you faggots use, because you don't like the idea that someone is born with more potential than you.

>>2991439
>it's not possible if you're not intelligent

Of course it is. They may just not go the normal way through elite institutions. And it takes a certain type of personality to even care about IQ tests so it's hardly a guideline.

So "talent" is just a catch all phrase to you.

The truth you desperately are trying to deny so you can keep making excuses for yourself is that you have no fucking idea of why a specific person do well. You just like the idea of talent because it makes you feel better.

The amount of factors that impact us after birth are many. If you actually had any idea of what you were talking about then you would know that even a high IQ wont take you very far in academics if you don't have the motivation or right background. Somebody with discipline and who knows how to study will catch up to and get ahead of someone with a higher IQ pretty fast.

>It's just a strawman you faggots use, because you don't like the idea that someone is born with more potential than you.

A strawman just after claiming others use them.

Talent exists, but at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is practice.

>>2991513
>And it takes a certain type of personality to even care about IQ tests so it's hardly a guideline.
Yeah. Fuck science, right? IQ and g are extremely accurate predictors of success, and there is more or less universal scientific consensus that IQ is a valid measurement of general intelligence. This isn't up for debate. The blank slate hypothesis has been debunked so hard it's not even funny.

>The truth you desperately are trying to deny so you can keep making excuses for yourself is that you have no fucking idea of why a specific person do well. You just like the idea of talent because it makes you feel better.
Again, nice strawman, faggot. I have talents in certain areas, and have breezed through a degree other people struggled with, despite putting in considerably less work than they did.

>Somebody with discipline and who knows how to study will catch up to and get ahead of someone with a higher IQ pretty fast.
This is something I don't get. Why do you morons act as if talent and hard work are diametrically opposed? People with talent don't necessarily put in less work than people without talent. In fact, talented people are often more likely to work hard at something, because they're good at it.

>A strawman just after claiming others use them.
It's not a strawman. It's an entire political ideology that wants to pretend talent and intelligence aren't real, because of the societal implications of some people being born with superior abilities. It's partially responsible for the high rates of depression and anxiety in young people today, because they've been told they can do anything and be anything, only to realize that they're too stupid to succeed. In turn, this lets people blame outside factors or society for their own failures, because they can't fathom that they're just not as intelligent or naturally gifted as other people no matter how much work they put in.

>>2991543
>Yeah. Fuck science, right? IQ and g

Where do you live where everyone takes IQ tests?! If you want proper statistics then you first need to eliminate variables like that. You know, science.

Seriously. You sound like a schooled retard.

>post an ad hominem and strawman fallacy
>B-But it's not a strawman.

It is you shitbrain.

>>2991551
>Where do you live where everyone takes IQ tests?!
When did I make this claim, and what does this have to do with anything?

>It is you shitbrain.
Nice arguments.

>>2991565
>and what does this have to do with anything?
All your claims on IQ are based on statistical evidence. It should be clear what that has to do with it if you wasn't such a shitbbrain. Even for engineer students it's not common to take IQ tests.

>>2991575
So because they don't test every single person in the world, you're going to pretend they haven't tested millions of people over the years?
Are these tests somehow invalid?

Jesus Christ, you're dumber than I thought.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/

>>2991581
Hey shitbrain. Have you considered that the choice of taking a test in itself is a selection process? (I know you haven't because you are stupid like that)

There are many potential reasons why a smart person would not want to take one but I don't think you can imagine that because as I said, you sound like a trained retard.

File: 3yearold.jpg (5KB, 180x250px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 180x250px

>>2991195

Talent does exist but only a few pro would be found to be really talented and most of the people making a living out of art would be found average and just went there through dedication, some connections and some luck.
We could find hundred of "meh" or "ok" artists who are successful like >>2990987 said.

I made some search to what would qualify as talent in the arts, for some reason, the number of kids with a talent for drawing is vastly inferior to kids with a talent for music or mathematics but those kids exist anyway...

... and most of that advantage is unnecessary for adults, even thoug it's totally cool to have the spark and ligameme, of course, but you can do without:

> They learn more rapidly in the domain.
> They are intrinsically motivated to acquire skill in the domain.
> They make discoveries without much explicit explanation (from a teacher).
> They often do things in the domain that
ordinary hard workers never do - inventing new solutions, thinking, seeing, or hearing in a
qualitatively different way.

So let's say you're not talented. Big deal, means you were shit as a kid and now you have to read books instead of self-learning through some divine inspiration and it will take you twice the time. Still doable, and what most people are doing, it's not different from having a normal IQ, that's what most of us have and we go by just fine.

> Drawing from a 3 year old kid

Let's assume that yes, you will never be able to paint like Sargent no matter how hard you try. Let's even say that hard work will only get you to the most bland Legend of the Cryptids tier output AT BEST.

What are you going to do? Quit?

One's real concern should be about being able to make a living out of it and you can do so with shit tier art. If you can't make a living with your skills and you're at an age where you should, then yeah maybe you should quit or at least let art take the backseat. By all means you should get as good as you can but we're in a world that is so accepting and forgiving towards art, you can do abstract shit or cartoons or comics or toilet paper with watercolor birds on it and it's all sellable.

I'm reading a book by an English watercolorist from the late 1800s where he gives lots of suggestions to the budding artist and so many are related to reputation, doing this and that in the manner of Italians because otherwise people will laugh in your face for being passé, and so on. All of which is probably heartfelt advice from someone who knows his shit about what sells and what doesn't. It must have been a living hell to be a painter in those times. Whereas now we can paint giant muscle lolis stomping cities to dust and gather a following.

>>2990899
>implying

>>2984429

>responds with a fucking anime pic

Fucking kill yourself faggot.