>talent is real

Talent IS real. Doesn't mean you can't work hard and get just as good as talented timmy. Your image proves nothing.

File: 5dc4e73a6ef00ee5c883170bdecfc009.jpg (28KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 400x300px

>>3030709

>>3030709
>t. I'm too lazy to achieve anything so I'm gonna blame it on genetics

File: seal_of_approval-under-creative-commons-license.jpg (10KB, 239x221px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 239x221px

>>3030704
I, Anon, approve of the message of this post.

>>3030704
Talent is fucking real. If one/both of your parents were artists, of fucking course you will inherit a gift for drawing. It gets imprinted in your DNA. You think every one of those big artists would ever try to undermine his achievements because they had talent? Of course not. It's pure fucking coquetry.

Before you call me a lazy ass. My father is a painter, I drew better than every other classmate (art high school), every teacher admitted that I had the best grasp of anatomy, line and valor. I was best at sculpting.

Talent will fade away if you don't cultivate it, but it makes learning new things ridiculously easy. It's a huge help.

>>3030704
>>3030710
Fucking nice. Glad these people understand it's hard work and not bullshit like talent, who started the talent meme? The uneducated masses who saw educated people do and know things like magic?

>>3030709
Hitler got told to fuck off, but he became more relevant to world history than any other artist because he worked real hard towards his goals.

>>3030736
That's likely nurture not nature. You're confusing talent with early learning. A middle/upper middle class upbringing filled with extracurriculars is how "talent" is created. It does exist but imo these are far more integral.

Look into László Polgár's chess experiment on his children. Obviously the sample size is small but he speaks about similar ideas but taken to the extreme (and raised two world class chess prodigies)

File: franklin_quote.jpg (239KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1920x1080px

these are really one of my favorite internet memes

>>3030748
>László Polgár's chess experiment on his children
Not that anon, but I found this to be very impressive when I'm around kids, you can't control them at all. This guy isn't just a great teacher, he's a great parent too. Whatever he did, he did right, because it's not as easy as just giving it to them if they don't want it.

>>3030736
I think it's more a matter of exposition rather than DNA

That's just not how genetics work. Kids don't inherit the muscle mass of someone who lifts, just as they don't inherit other skills, such as drawing or music.

>>3030713

>t. drooling retard who can't read a three sentence post

>>3030709
The thing is there are people on /ic/ ***RIGHT NOW*** that actually don't believe talent is real.

>>3030758
Can you prove talent is real? At what point can you tell the difference between hard work and talent? And don't just tell me that it comes easier bullshit, because there's no way to gauge what goes on inside someone else's mind.

File: happy-cheerful-child-drawing-brush-album-26127402.jpg (212KB, 1297x865px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1297x865px

>>3030704
Depends what type of art. If you into anime, then pic related is ok.

>>3030758
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean

>what is regression to the means in genetics
>being this illiterate

>>3030704
>>3030744
>thinking a made up apocryphal quote from AZquotes is the same thing as an argument
JS Bach was an extreme outlier in terms of talent (coupled with Protestant work ethic) and in many ways his music remains unsurpassed.

>>3030761
Can you prove water is real? At what point can you tell the difference between a hallucination and water? And don't just tell me that it feels watery bullshit, because there's no way to gauge what goes on outside your own mind.

>>3030764
Thanks for that wiki link and greentext. Back to the topic, though...

File: Bruce-LEe-Quotes-If-you-always-put-limits.jpg (34KB, 403x403px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 403x403px

>>3030765
>he doesn't believe that hard work can reach him to greater heights than lazy excuses

>>3030774
Holy shit, why didn't I see this sooner? Yeah fuck limits.

>>3030777
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sdu0bpdiqgM

Talent is real but its completely pointless to think about.


You could be average but have had a great upbringing free of stress in an environment that cultivated learning.

You can be talented but born into a family that is living in poverty and doing drugs (look into impact of stress)

You could view yourself talented/smart but have never been challenged in school, therefore have a complete and utterly shit work ethic

Or you could be YOU anon, clearly a potentially talented person but you won't know until you put the major effort in.

Talent is just a means of "othering" people and preserving the ego. It does exist but its not an excuse to be lazy yourself.

Stop debating irrelevant shit, you could be drawing right now.

>>3030710
>>3030744
You realize that Beethoven was Joe Jackson'd by his dad until he became a child prodigy right? And that he was a court musician at age 13? And in the same year published his first work for the keyboard? This is the problem with putting your faith in spurious aspirational infographics and not fact-checking.

>>3030787
I think it's something that you think about when you plateau or when you think you're not improving anymore. How do you know hard work is going to get you anywhere or not? You don't until you put it in, but by then it may be too late. So it's not 100% pointless to think about, it may just happen because of social conditioning.

File: 3972517aba309855427d16b1c184cf0b.png (104KB, 1000x620px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1000x620px

>>3030791
>late bloomers don't exist because of child prodigies

>>3030796
Are there teen prodigies or adult prodigies?
What's the level under prodigy?
The ones who don't fully meet the standard of impressive?

I saw a video not long ago by a guy whose been teaching art for years, the point he makes from his observation about talent seems pretty on point to me.

There is person A who, especially in their youth, show a natural affinity for any number of things (to pretend art can't be included in this is being deliberately stupid). Things just click for them, they find instruction intuitive and easy to understand, they have good 'taste', they've got good hand-eye coordination, they can recognize and identify different colors well, maybe one or maybe all of the above. These people exist to varying degrees, sorry if you don't believe me, but get your head out of the sand and just accept it.
Person B doesn't have a knack and doesn't bother to learn. It's too hard, he quits and moves on to something else.
Then there's person C, who lacks a 'knack' but decides to stick with it. Because they don't "just get it" they study the theory, they learn how it works and why it works. They don't rely on intuition, they rely on knowledge and they build their skill from those foundations.

At a point, training surpasses intuition. Can any of you think of people you knew when you were young that were great at art and are either mediocre now or just quit? I can. But if person A becomes more like person C, they'll be facing all the same hurdles, perhaps now at a disadvantage because they've picked up bad habits along the way. Person C has been learning their fundamentals for years, and even if it took them a long time to reach the point that person A was breezing through, they've got the edge now.

tl;dr talent and skill tend to level out, they're better out of the box but you can surpass them with training. Stop crying about not having talent, and stop deluding yourself into thinking it's not real.

>>3030796
I never said that, only that "Beethoven's teachers said he'd never amount to anything" is a retarded unsourced myth, because he was trained by one of the top musicians in Bonn, Christian Gottlob Neefe, who taught him composition.

>>3030794

Most any intellectual pursuit "plateauing" means it's time to radically and fundamentally change your workflow. The magic of drawing is there is a pretty limitless pool of information to study from and it will all inform eachother. Its less about a true plateau and more about being fatigued or emotional minded about your level and not having the resources to change your approach.


Unless we are talking about something purely reaction based, then it's much more dependent on age/genetics.

File: quote-i-take-great-solace-that-einstein-failed-math-i-failed-math-i-also-failed-english-and-danny-bonaduce-84-75-50.jpg (62KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 850x400px

>>3030802
there's not age for excellence.

some late bloomers started at 40-50
some old lady started to paint when she was 80.

>>3030806
einstein was bad at math and people though he was retarded.

>>3030804
I'm in this exact boat myself. Having to develop actual discipline and learn how to effectively study because of not feeling challenged past elementary school. (Getting wrecked in college doing trivial shit because of poor time management). Its a process but its hilarious how much the tables have turned when I look at how disciplined some of my peers are

>>3030812
When did Einstein fail math? Sure he may have been bad at one point in time, but so was everyone.

File: man with indiscernable talent.jpg (11KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 480x360px

Talent is its own expectation, Jim: you either live up to it or it waves a hankie, receding forever. Use it or lose it, he say over the newspaper. I’m…I’m just afraid of having a tombstone that says HERE LIES A PROMISING OLD MAN. Potential maybe worse than none, Jim. Than no talent to fritter in the first place, lying around guzzling because I haven’t the balls to…

File: chillin.jpg (122KB, 634x916px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 634x916px

>>3030839
Talent is sort of a dark gift, that talent is its own expectation; it is there from the start and either lived up to or lost . . . leaving you yourself in a kind of feral and flux-ridden state with respect to talent . . . avoid thinking about any of this by practicing and playing until everything runs on autopilot and talent’s unconscious exercise becomes a way to escape yourself, a long waking dream of pure play. . . . The irony is . . . you . . . become regarded as having a prodigious talent to live up to.

>>3030821
Pretty sure he got gud, think that was earlier on that he did fail maths (like in school) but he was working in the patent office when he did his theory of relativity pretty sure it was a very technical job, of course he wasn't quite on the level of luke Newton or anything, but still great at maths more so the conceptual element of physics

>>3030766
this is the stupidest post I've read in a long time

>>3030875
It's philosophy 101 stuff

>>3030875
I think that was the idea.

>>3030875

google solipsism, but I'm pretty sure his point was to demonstrate that "you can't be SUUURE" is a retarded argument when virtually everyone has observed it to some degree. You can't be totally positive of almost anything.

File: 1465488864704.png (681KB, 593x746px) Image search: [Google]

681KB, 593x746px

>>3030704

>>3030812
>einstein was bad at math and people though he was retarded
Einstein was always good at math and nobody thought he was retarded, that's a myth perpetuated by retarded Americans who can't into German grading system.

File: 1482948228640s.jpg (2KB, 112x125px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 112x125px

It takes talent to work with focus; diligently, intelligently and are able to objectively look at your own output for flaws.

>>3030994
Guess we were all talented after all.

I think "talent" is confused with the ability to learn.
There's a certain methodology of looking back onto your work, finding out what's wrong, why is it wrong, and how you can make it right before applying that knowledge.
The problem of being "not talented" could stem from not approaching one of these points, and thus never getting any better.

>>3030997
>There's a certain methodology of looking back onto your work, finding out what's wrong, why is it wrong, and how you can make it right before applying that knowledge.
>yfw you realize they teach this when you're a kid
Makes you think, if you don't pay attention, you're fucked for life.

>>3031003
>>yfw you realize they teach this when you're a kid
I can't remember ever being taught this approach to learning, I'm conscious about it since half a year and I've been using it to learn guitar since three years (without really knowing that it was the right way to learn)
Now I'm not sure but it might had to do with the fact early school was easy for me, so I never had to really work to get good results. College handed me a good slap in the face after the first semester.

>>3030704

It's funny that I see a lot of parallels between art world and sport/fit world.

Both preach "you need to work hard, you can achieve anything when you work hard".
Both have "just buy X to get better"
Both have gurus, out of which 90% out there are for personal gain and audience exploitation.
Both sell the dream of becoming a chosen one, one in millions of people, a star.
In both cases "working professionaly" has usually jack-shit to do with initial teachings and requires "hacks" (like using steroids in the fit/sports case and photobashing/3D/computer programs for design/concept art)
Both have people willing to risk their physical and mental health and everything else to "make it".
Both at the same time scorn the notion of talent and praise the gifted individuals. Both also simplify success (in fit case: ignoring genetics and response to steroids, the use of steroids and self-promoting, in art case: ignoring self-promoting, copying, being brought up in artistic environment by wealthy and artistic parents)
Both have "tools don't matter" crowd and at the same time sell fuckton of equipment that is bought by the tonnes by amateurs and professionals alike.

Could /ic/ name few more to the list?

>>3031025

Oh and also both have:

"Your art/sport teachers LIE to you and school is a waste of time, you can learn everything on my course, sport/art university is for losers, you have internet, you don't need to meet with mentors and colleagues IRL"

>>3031028
>"Your art/sport teachers LIE to you and school is a waste of time, you can learn everything on my course, sport/art university is for losers, you have internet, you don't need to meet with mentors and colleagues IRL"
I don't think sports coaches say that, it's true for art though to some extent because it's more of a solo thing.

File: cat penis.jpg (22KB, 600x464px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 600x464px

>People here still argue if talent is real or not

The answer is so obvious, but you retards will spend all day proving otherwise. Go back to drawing, fucktards.

>>3031144

Yes, the answer is obvious, and the answer is that talent is real, you ambiguous nigger.

>>3030736
"Dino DNA." "Dino DNA." "Dino DNA."

Talent doesn't exist. There's nothing tangible about it. It's like Jesus Christ, UFO's and Santa Claus.

You tell that to your kids to make them think they're special, but they're not. They're hacks just like their parents.

Practice exists. That's a tangible thing. It's like water, the air you breathe and the fucking sun,

A teacher pushes practice on those students who can show tangible results, and leave the talent to those students who still believe in the Easter Bunny.

Your father was a painter because he practiced on his craft. Every teacher lied to you just to feed your ego. You WERE the best at scuplting, but are you still doing that now?

Practice helps you learn things better, talent only makes you think you can learn it better than it already is.

>>3031144
Hey, I have a dick cat too!

>>3031192
advantages brought about by either nature or early nurture exist. Whether you call it talent or not is up to you.

>>3031203
Wait, wait, wait. So you're telling me, that if nature decides to nurture me in my quest to become a better artist, I can consider calling that...talent?

How the hell does nature bring about that advantage? And early nurture is just that, nurturing. You can't call that talent, you twit.

Man, I yearn for the day when an artist arises from the depths of the jungle and showcases their work brought on by teaching of the trees. "Behold," the jungle man praised,"The trees taught me how to draw. It is because of them that I am who I am.Without their knowledge, i would be nothing."

Nurture would yield better results. "Yeah, I love to paint. I tried teaching my kid but, he's an idiot. I guess some kids aren't cut out to be artists. He's a hell of an entertainer, though. Makes people laugh. I can nurture that. Why the hell would I want my son or daughter to be just like me? Let them find their own way, and if they suck, it's my to tell them the truth. Why sugar coat the obvious flaws? What kind of a parent would I be?"

>>3031223
Not that anon, but this got me thinking, art is said to not be a natural thing, so isn't it like pure nurture anyways?

>>3031192
>Talent doesn't exist

>>3031223
What?

Nature = higher natural genetic aptitude for ____

Nurture = strong family support system that cultivates a drive for learning at an early age


Both generate advantages

>>3031227
>There's nothing tangible about it.

>>3031228
So, I can be an artistic freak of nature? It's in my DNA like the dinosaurs? Sweet. Glad we cleared that up.

So, if my family tells me I'm cool, then should believe them? Right, that's all squared away, too.

Both generate just as much homeopathic results. Want to get better, practice. Want to get worse, pretend you have talent.

Plain and simple.

File: 233.png (7KB, 251x201px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 251x201px

>>3030704
>but nobody can compose complicate music like bach these day

>>3031223
>>3031244
No wonder you're an "artist"; you're clearly too retarded to do anything but finger paint.

>>3031256
Her dad taught me how to.>>3030736

It's fun. Your mom likes my work.:)

>>3031244
You can have a stronger aptitude towards understanding objects in space, color etc than other people. Or you can pick up and internalize concepts quicker than other people.

Hard work still applies but not everyone has to work the same amount to get the same results.

You can generally correlate performance with upbringing. Obviously there are outliers but kids who grow up in a stable household while being given things like music lessons/tutoring/extracurricular activities will on average far outperform kids who grow up in a less stable environment. (In basically all aspects of academia)

So again the natural aptitude/affinity towards certain subjects(nature) and the good upbringing (is how you get kids who far outperform their peers.

Call it talent, genetic advantages, class/social advantages- whatever you want.

All it turns into is some kid only needing to spend a few days/weeks on a subject to internalize it compared to potentially a few months of equally hard work from an individual without said background.

The advantages exist it's just more about upbringing than diceroll genetics

>>3031251
The joke is no one cares about bach, have you seen the videos that have a billion views on youtube?

File: Richard_Schmid.jpg (198KB, 1024x684px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1024x684px

>TALENT
>Don't bother about whether or not you have it. Just assume that you do, and then forget about it.
>- Richard Schmid, Alla Prima

File: Richard_Schmid_1.jpg (294KB, 800x545px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 800x545px

>>3031283

>>3031279
I call it practice, not some long winded explanation explaining the same thing.

Talent still doesn't exist.

>>3031296
talented people still have to practice.

Again its ability and ease for someone to internalize and apply the information that would be regarded as talent.


You're distorting it into thinking that someone with talent does not have to work hard. They do. It's clear that certain people learn quicker than others though.

>>3030748
Thinking about this always makes me sad. I used to do so many extracurricular activities when I was young and then my mom had to go to work and then I became a video game addict in middle school because I was home alone all day. I'm trying to get into stuff again but its not the same. The social aspect is what I struggle with. Getting out of my house and going places is hard for me. Even worse I live in nyc and there's always stuff going on for every hobby and I still don't go out. Also if u suck at something when ur ten its ok. If u suck at something when ur 19 it feels bad.

But whatever. I guess on the bright side I'm the best battlefield 3 player you'll ever meet.

>>3030704
>do you get it?

>I get it = talent
>i don't get it = hard work

>>3031336
you still have plenty of potential senpai, just get disciplined and change your routine/environment.

I was in same boat and basically had to flat out quit video games for a while.

>>3030736
There is no genetic explanation for talent. No 'concept artist gene'. The fact people think such a complex array of variables can be explained in biology is pretty fucking kek

>>3031373
>>do you get it?
>>I get it = I payed attention because this kind of things interests me because I saw once a bigger kid do them and I was wondering how he did it, I want to get right into it and try my new ideas
>>i don't get it = I was just standing here listening to what you were saying but without thinking how what you explained work or how I could change and play with it, therefore I'' need a few months of you trying to teach it to me, just then I'' start getting an interest into it like the other kid did from his first day

>>3031450
I'll* wtf keyboard

>>3030781
Fucking garbage shilling his shit book

just listen to alan watts if you need any sort of motivation in your life

I don't think talent is real, more so I kinda see it as a dirty word.

Like it's something some guy invented to explain away why someone is so good at something, a pseudo magic factor predetermined at birth that makes you good at something. Like ,"Oh, Bruce Lee wasn't an extremely dedicated practitioner of martial arts and a great director because of the hours of arduous and insane training and practice he did, he was just talented." And ," Yusuke Murata, Reiq, or Kenneth Rocafort aren't extremely passionate artists that have worked diligently across their lives working their hearts out at something they love, they're talented, they were born for it."

Like it's dismissive; you can explain away and dissuade yourself from anything and everything by saying "I lack the talent," and it fucking pisses me off.

I always thought skill was the better word for talent. That famous athletes or artists aren't "talented", they're skilled. Their abilities are from a life of passion and drive for what they love, not birthright.


Idk in rambling now

>>3031484
from now on each time I hear somebody saying the word talented I'll interrupt him by saying skilled

>>3031484
Meanwhile there are professional cyclists that say a large chunk of becoming the best is genetics. Granted genetics clearly play more of a factor in physical sports

File: image.jpg (27KB, 332x400px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 332x400px

>>3030704
The truth lies in the middle. There is a thing such as talent, but past a certain treshold you can get as good as the best ones in the game. Wagner, for example, was a terrible score reader, a late starter, a mediocre pianist and he could barely sing, yet his musical dramas are nothing short of miracolous when it comes to their harmonic, melodic, contrapunctual and dramatic structure.
Also it's not only raw talent, but also inclination. As a piano and composition teacher I've met countless brilliant technicians who were as shallow as a puddle. They simply could not get it, no amount of studying could have possibly resulted in an actual masterpiece, it was not in them. There are also people who are simply untalented on every possible ground. People who can't do something as simple as matching a pitch in their singing range, or to produce a melody that is not evidently derivative or aimless.
Bach was somewhat right in what he said. He certainly was an exceptionally musical person, but all of his innovations were the fruit of erudition and intense productivity. The talent is something that comes after, something that he "adds" to the music. You certainly need to be smart to a certain degree to attain this degree of erudition, but on the other side one should notice that most of this erudition adds up to effortlessness. After countless hours of practice Bach could glance at a theme and immediatly figure out everything that could be done. CPE described this ability of his father as immediate, almost improvisational. I guess it's only reasonable to expect someone to be so comfortable with so complex systems if he spends 50 years of his life frantically studying it.

tl;dr: it's kinda about talent and personality, but don't take this statement in a dogmatic way, nor expect talent and personality to necessarily match quality

>>3031506
Yeah, but there is no such thing as "the best" artist. Once you get an alright understanding of the fundamentals, it's mostly just your own personality, ideas and execution that makes your art stand out. Hell, most modern realism masters nowdays are less known and less successful than some popular Deviantart and Instagram animu fanartists.

File: 1497739396686.gif (3MB, 300x236px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 300x236px

If you are hinging your work ethic on whether talent is real or not, then consider this:

Suppose tomorrow there is absolute proof that talent exists, that it dominates work ethic and that talented people are the ones that make the best work ever. That your potential will never reach their potential.

Would this make you quit?

If even an iota of your being is whispering "maybe", you can pack up your shit right now. You're in it for the wrong reasons.

Where the fuck are those janitors and why do these threads keep coming up.

>>3031522
I don't see why one should discard thw agonistic aspect of art making. It's a very modern view on art, which does not account for anything that came before Romanticism, and even know said hierarchies are present, although the focus has been shifted away from the perfection of one's craft.
Also I think you're not really considering how bad an artist can be. Certain people simply should not do it, or at the very least only treat it as a hobby. The world certainly does not need more boring, uninspired and derivative art.

>>3031525
>The world certainly does not need more boring, uninspired and derivative art.

Being good at creating exciting, inspired and non-derivative art would be an entirely different set of talents though. So according to your logic, should the people blessed with the talent and the ability to get really good at the technical aspect of art but lack those other talents also quit? The world certainly does not need any more boring, uninspired and derivative, yet beautifully painted pictures of flowers and naked women. Then we also have to question just what does objectively count as boring, uninspired and derivative, because I assure you, no matter who you are, there will always be someone who finds your work bland and boring.

>>3031531
What about a guy badly drawing motorcycles with big breasted women on them, on a background made only out of flames? Or a skull with rastas who is smoking a joint?

>>3031546
>>3031548
Is being such a shitter somehow essential to becoming a great artist? If so, /ic/ is gonna be great in the future.

File: 1490982211415.gif (1011KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

1011KB, 500x500px

>>3030709
Talent is nothing more than aptitude to learn faster, you assimilate faster with a much leaner learning curve than other people

And instead of genetics, its mostly environmental, if you pick a child and nurture him to a productive hobby like writing, reading, dancing, drawing or playing a instrument, whoa big surprise he will not only have pleasure doing that but he will also carry some early memory of mechanical/intuitive skill

>>3030736
Explain Jade Smith then, or any other shitkid who its father tries to push as an artist but can't do shit
>but muh anecdotal and made up evidence

Surprised the board is so insecure to bite this shitty tier bait so hard

>>3031568
What about kjg drawing motorcycles with big breasted women on them, on a background made only out of flames? Or a skull with rastas who is smoking a joint?

you are right, the world doesn't need bad artists. But guess what, everybody was bad when they started. What the world doesn't need is artists which remain bad even after years of training because of bad training. So in other words what the world doesn't need is bad training.

>>3031581
Where does aptitude to learn faster come from? Is there a way to better your aptitude?

>>3031585
>>3031450

File: 1489618967292.gif (120KB, 497x372px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 497x372px

>>3031585
Its mostly how you are as a person, so this part can be more genetic, but again we as a species evolved to simply learn

My father was a business man once, after some huge crash happened he had to work as an electrician, lots of people told him to give up because he would never stand a chance to work in such hardcore environment ( literally climbing street lamps in stormy nights and doing shit and stressful job for most of the time ) when for 6 previous years of his life he worked in a office with a pen in his hand all day

Well he retired as an electrician and still to his day he still knows everything about it sometimes when we driving together for a family reunion or something he tells me some of his stories or just explains how the street lamps work to kill the time for example

Also at the end of the day is all about knowing yourself thats the ultimate secret of life

If I ask you to move a box from point A to point B in 7 days, I don't give a fuck how you did it

You may have used a plane, a car, a bike maybe you even didn't used a vehicle and instead rushed with your own legs

The only general rule to apply is self-discipline, even ''''''talent'''' can't carry you so far if you can't force yourself to just do it and grind those painful hours you need

Its simply impossible to make it in anything just theorycrafting

File: 1494479695959.gif (731KB, 227x347px) Image search: [Google]

731KB, 227x347px

>>3031598
>>3031581
To add because I gotta sleep but don't wanna to keep this in my system and wanna help insecure anons too

Talent, can only be a truthful answer when its something physical

Like its really hard to be truly good at basketball if you aren't 6'5 at very least, Shaq was actually pretty bad but just his stature alone granted him an edge hard enough for most people to beat

But again once in a while we see some people become legendary even if they are short compared to these giants: Stephen Curry, Calvin Murphy and Michael Adams for example at the top of my head right now

And they did it by working it, even Messi is considered a limited player by his stature and being left-handed only player who can't barely do shit compared to how Christiano Ronaldo is a complete all-around player

But everybody knows Messi is the fucking boss of soccer/football

>tl;dr
muh talent is a meme

>>3031522
Amen. Finally someone else with some sense.

>>3031525
>I don't see why one should discard thw agonistic aspect of art making.
Because the prerequisite to being an artist is that it should be a NEED, otherwise why the heck are you even doing it?

>>3031696
>Because the prerequisite to being an artist is that it should be a NEED, otherwise why the heck are you even doing it?

Said need does not exclude agonism, and for many artists of the past (basically everyone until the 19th century) it has been a source of productivity and creativity, which is what matters the most for the creative.
Would you blame Raphael, Mozart and Petrarch for having been so agonist and elitist in their life time? I bet you would brush that off, given their ouvre.

>>3031696
The prerequisite to being an artist is making art. Everything else comes after.

>>3031522
>>3031522
Fucking A. Creative people have something inside them that compels them to be creative, much like a hunger. And it's not a walk in the park, it can lead to self-destruction and feeling empty if they don't attend to it.

File: 1497528265283.gif (2MB, 498x373px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 498x373px

Talent is 100% real.
But how do you find out if you have it or not? Easy! Just draw for 8 hours a day for the next 7 years.

After 7 years, then you can see if you have talent are not.

>>3031579
This is Mullins too
>>3030942

File: 1497254824853.jpg (105KB, 592x640px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 592x640px

>>3030736
>and valor
There is a great value in valor

File: Kekus Maximus sm.jpg (576KB, 681x800px) Image search: [Google]

576KB, 681x800px

>>3031770
top bantz, anon

In this thread everyone is telling is definition of talent, real or not, but no one care about another and no one will change his mind
Real or not, you suck

I think talent 'exists', not as an actual thing of its own but as another name for being so into an activity that you enjoy it even when you're doing poorly.

>>3030736
do this debil think lamarckian evolution is real?

File: 61-tb+vpA3L._SL1143_.jpg (67KB, 467x342px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 467x342px

>>3030736

>dad is scientist
>mom is scientist

honestly i always fantasize about the whole swapping out your parents, to like a family of all artists.
>STEM OR DEATH
>b but muh personal expression

Someone with artist parents tell me its not as great as it sounds

People misunderstand talent as "magic", which is the problem.

Talent is an catchall term for the end result of various factors during a child's growth that develop them to be naturally better at a skill than their peers.

Talent isn't one thing, talent doesn't come from one thing. Some people end up being better at some things than other people, and that's what we call talent.

>>3030736
>Talent is fucking real. If one/both of your parents were artists, of fucking course you will inherit a gift for drawing. It gets imprinted in your DNA.

This is not how genetics work.


If a person started off as a terrible artist but over the years became good at it, after which he conceives a child, that child will not be naturally good at art when he grows up.

The reason why that child will likely grow up to be a decent artist is because they will be surrounded by art their whole life.

>>3031604
>>3031598
>>3031581
Sleep tight anon

>>3031811
You know how you hate STEM and all? People with artist parents hate art.

>>3031548

Mullins had Whiplash teachers, that explains... absolutely nothing since I don' know shit about him :^)

>>3030713

Genetics are real though, some people are born with a shit loads of dopamine and just can't stop being energetic fags who are super organized and disgust adverse. To say we are all the same, it's kinda silly.
But oh well, nothing modern medicine can't solve. That's what Amphetamine is for, for lazy fucks like me.

>>3030704
>an author's denial of talent means that talent doesn't exist

This is called FALSE HUMILITY and is famous in Christians

>>3031144
This guy gets it.

>>3030812
Actually Einstein excelled in math and science. He failed at everything else. He dropped out of school and was a janitor for a while. I don't need to tell you if you work hard you can make it.

>>3035248
>I don't need to tell you if you work hard you can make it.
People who believe in talent don't believe this.

>>3035250
I know talent exists. Some people can pick up anything and just do it. But talent should never discourage you. Focus on your own race not others.

I'm the man of the opinion that if you work hard AND have someone to mentor you and guide you. You can be a pro at anything. Like if you do it in your free time/wanna make it. Take some classes. Drawing a lot gets results. But it gets even more results when you are actively learning via professional instruction/critique/someone pointing our your missteps. Never give up no matter how many of these faggots put you down. Use that shit to push on.

EX: lots of programmers are going into art and are producing work just as good as industry veterans.A guy from HS I knew is an engineer took a bunch of online courses and studied 7 hours a day and hes got a job as a concept artsit.

Work hard and get some guidance dawg.

>>3035266
>artsit

mobile a shit.

>>3035266
>EX: lots of programmers are going into art and are producing work just as good as industry veterans.A guy from HS I knew is an engineer took a bunch of online courses and studied 7 hours a day and hes got a job as a concept artsit.
How do you know this? And how long was he studying before he made it?

>>3035274
He was studying for about 2 years while working full time. But he was actively posting on forums/making friends with artists FAR above his level. He knew he was a pleb but he asked for advice. Didn't sleep much.

Go on deviantart/dumblr/plebbit. Find a pro artist and ask them for critique and what to do. Become a friend. Make friends outside this place and make bets to one up each other each illustration wise. This place is fun. But having a place to track your progress/finding a place in a community is more beneficial IMO.

It's a trend I've been noticing. Programmers are going into art. And artists are going into programming. Thanks to the interest of both sides, art/programming have become far more accessible to each other than ever.

>>3035284
Is this seriously a trend? Holy shit, fucking up right now then.

>>3030744
>Every person that undergoes training see that exact same results

You must have never taken an art class

>>3035294
It is. lol. One of the places, drawabox ,the founder went through that trend. He went from a programmer to an artist. And now he works as a concept artist.

Also Dzu Nguyen used to be an EE and became a environmental artist for Sony.

>>3035294
>be worthless retard
>I guess I'll be a programmer at least it's easy
>well programming sucks but I know the value of work now so I want to aim at something
>what do I like
>pictures of big titties
>ok

>>3035351
Good thing figured out to be an artist before that happened.

>>3031244
There are differences between humans in neurology and other aspects of physical anatomy that will give advantages and disadvantages in performing certain tasks. Drawing is no different since it's based on motor skills.

Talent is just like having a faster car. You'll reach the destination quicker but it doesn't mean it's impossible for others to get there aswell.

>You realize that Beethoven was Joe Jackson'd by his dad until he became a child prodigy right? And that he was a court musician at age 13? And in the same year published his first work for the keyboard? This is the problem with putting your faith in spurious aspirational infographics and not fact-checking.

The competence Beeoven attained in his teenagehood was nothing extraordinary, and it mostly amounted to conductive choruses and writing short menuets and dances. In this period he showed literally no talent in composition, and as a man in his mid 20s he was still unable of even grasping the basics of counterpoint (Haydn's lessons are usually seen as a sign of pedigree in Beethoven's case, yet no one ever mentions the fact that they were a disaster, and that Beethoven ended up scamming Haydn multiple times).
>>3030802
Most major romantic composers are late bloomers.
Liszt took his first composition class in his mid 20s; by the time he was 19 Schumann was merely an enthusiast, and had no training whatsoever; Berlioz took his first lesson when he was 20, and he never learnt the piano, not even at an amateur level; Wagner decided to pick music when he was 18 and self-educated himself (with the initial aid of conservatories and a few small-time teachers) to the point of full mastery of all musical forms.

Also Ravel started studying seriously in his early 20s, composing his first early piece when he was 25 (these were still conservatory exercises: his formal training was not over yet). Schoenberg started studying in his 20s: his first works are neoromantic in nature, and display a full control of every element of tonality. Haydn picked composition seriously in his mid 20s, earlier than that he was a friendly amateur musician. Pretty much every renaissance composer was a late starter.

Do I need to go on? Countless similar examples can be found in every other medium that is not agonistic jn nature (this would exclude piano players, or ballet dancers)

>>3035695
>Most major romantic composers are late bloomers.
Thanks for the inspiring post Anon, I've always seen music as the ultimate form of art, perhaps the only true art, and hearing stories on how starting violin at 8 is considered too late always made me feel like shit since I started drawing seriously at 26.

It's simple really. Almost anyone can reach a professional level of art if they practice enough and properly. However, only a small amount of people could ever reach a Mullins or Ruan Jia level. The average or below average person couldn't reach such a level even if they studied the exact same stuff and practiced for the same amount of hours as Ruan Jia.

The highest levels of skill is where talent really shows itself.

>>3035787
>you'll never paint like Ruan Jia and any other Chinese master
thank goodness