How do you know if you have talent or not?

Only hard work will bring it out.

>>3093007
Test your IQ.

>>3093007
i think it's when you think you suck, and you're like 'i suck.' that means your talented

if you think you suck and you're like 'i wish i wish i had a god given gift to do this like everyone who is good at it already'
then you don't have any talent

it's like, if you have a big dick you don't go around thinking about dicks all the time, because you don't have to worry about that

>>3093012
/thread
>>3093007
if you open threads like these and ask stupid questions like these be sure you aren't a very smart person and you most probably aren't gonna make it.

>>3093012
>>3093014
i was only pretending

>>3093007
If owlshit can make money out of his crappy doodles, why can't you? It doesn't take much drawing talent to be at the same level as owlshit.

>>3093021
he is asking how do you know you have talent, not how to make money off bad art.
you are pretty much as dumb as OP.

Talent also includes motivation and fixation aside from technical capabilities. If you have none of them, like you're shit at drawing yet learning to draw really revolts you, you're just fucked.

>>3093007
If you had an interest in something from a very young age and pursued that interest since, that's talent

It can be confused with a talent for learning, or having access to good teachers

>>3093007
i want to punch that artist in his face
thats the most retarded thing i saw this week

>>3093038
success breeds jealously

>>3093007
If you shitpost on /ic/ with unwarranted self importance, odds are you're a talenless hack.

>>3093051
Like clockwork
>>3093014

Draw for awhile. If people tell you you are talented (outside of your family), you're likely talented to some degree. If nobody says anything, well you probably are not talented.

>>3093007
What is your goal?

If you wanna be the best you could technically just do what everyone else is doing and being better at every single step.

Realistically that probably wont give you exposure because normalfags cant differentiate between your work or someone worse.

This means that you not only have to draw better you have to draw something unique that no one has ever seen before thats still appealing.
>see picasso

Is that something that is likely to earn you money, fame or recognition?
Probably not.

see
>>3093021

If you still wonder if you have talent you have to figure out what talent is

It's like asking "how do I know if I'm tall"

Where is the clear cut definition of when someone becomes tall, who the fuck knows.
The point is that you look like an insecure idiot if you ask that and it's way easier and more helpful if you just choose to arbitrarily believe you are.

>>3093007
some people are just better than others honestly.

>>3093085
am I talented if people say "holy shit" to my work?

>>3093007
Talent does not exist

>>3093208
because you don't have any?

>>3093232
You don't come out of the pussy drawing like loomis.

What is talent?

>>3093248
Your Int stat, brainlet.

>>3093249
>not Luck

t. 3 INT

>>3093007
This post again, pretty sure there will be a debate between those who believe that all is in your effort and the ones that think´s that its futile to waste time when there´s people with skill that can reach his level without a sweat.

For mi part, y have like 3 years drawing just for fun, yeah I have certain level of improvement but not much, and im too lazy to try to do it better than that.

>>3093007
talent is a mixture of things. like fast learning, composure, obsession. a will to please others or help others is one. you cant be a total autist. those are just savants who have messed up brains. also, you need to have a constantly evolving goal. like great, so you learned proportions. was that your endgame? if so youre probably gonna stay there or have a crisis, or both. you need to evolve that into going somewhere further that that proportional knowledge can rocket you to. the luck part? probably being all that, being attractive, being healthy, but most of all, being born into an environment that allows you to bloom. It can be abusive if thats your kink and it just makes you work harder. It can be compassionate if you need that gentle nudge on your backside to keep going. but thats luck for you.

all in all, its a meme, purely in that theres no point in worrying about it now. youre already fucking born, retard. youre already an adult. assess your situation and apply accordingly.

>>3093248
intuitively knowing what you're doing

File: Smilin-Biden.jpg (21KB, 400x568px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 400x568px

>>3093013
Surprisingly accurate.

>>3093186
Yes, usually people you don't know go out of their way to talk about your sketchbook. Bonus points if they ask you to draw them and say that they can't even draw a stick figure.

>>3093315
usually people you don't know don't go out of their way to talk about your sketchbook*

>owlturd
>hard work
nice one

>>3093007
There is no such thing as talent, or at least not in a direct sense.

Some people have better memory or spatial awareness or color sensitivity but there is no such thing as having a biological advantage at drawing. Its too abstract a skill for it to be directly related to biology. If you are struggling to learn to draw because of biological reasons you probably have bigger issues than a lack of 'artistic talent' and it would be very apparent in your other day to day tasks (for example colour blindness: which is essentially a low colour sensitivity).

The best artists don't have talent, they have knowledge we don't and 20,000 more hours practice.

File: 1494961534898.jpg (141KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1200x1200px

>>3093007

File: 1412466470061.png (239KB, 449x721px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 449x721px

>tfw I'm talented

File: iq.png (13KB, 658x401px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 658x401px

>>3093007
Can i make it /ic/?

>>3094035
you got the spark champ

>>3094035
shoot for the stars

>>3093368
underrated

>>3093012
>>3093249
This.
Talent is and has only ever been intelligence misunderstood by normies.
It's an objective fact that people that are smart learn quicker.
When some kid picks up and understands math and science really easily normies will label him as "smart" but when the same thing occurs with creative activities they say they're "talented" instead even though it's the same thing.
I think you'll find that most "talented" people are pretty smart when it comes to other things too but their interests/personality lead them to train and develop their creative skills rather than STEM.
Then we've got freaks like Leonardo Da Vinci that are into both and can become skilled in many fields of both art and science because he's a fucking genius.

Some people also see talent as a "starting point" such as in OP's pic. I figure this is just passively training somewhat related skills through other activities during earlier points in life (through "play" basically) >>3093368
Some shitty examples:
A kid that plays with lego a lot might understand construction and thinking in 3d better than one that doesn't.
A kid that plays pretend and imagines scenarios a lot might have an easier time coming up with ideas later in life.
and most importantly:
A kid that draws a lot as a child will be better at drawing when they decide to "get serious" as an adult.

Talent is just intelligence guided by interest/passion.

>>3094035
iq doesnt count in creative fields

>>3093007
Something something don't worry if you have talent quote because if you did you would know.

>>3094277
I thought the quote was "something something there's no way to know if you have talent or not until after you git gud so don't worry about it something something"

File: 1472557709768.png (80KB, 243x247px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 243x247px

>>3094276
>Reasoning and problem-solving ability not relevant to creative fields
Your next line is "thats not what iq is"

>>3093012
This.
If talent were just be the equivalent of "you get to start 10 meters ahead", then it really would be the kind of thing you can easily make up for it with a good work ethic. Intelligence though is a multiplier, which means that even if you try to concentrate on art 8 hours a day, if your problem solving and 3d thinking are subpar you're not going to be able to catch up with someone who makes all those connections you have such a hard time establishing naturally and intuitively.

Even before worrying about art, you should try to find ways to become more more alert and focused. Meditate, live a healthy life, immerse yourself in what you are trying to accomplish and you should be able to speed up your growth as an artist significantly. And if you can't manage to learn independently the best thing you can do is take classes and have someone drill the fundamentals into you.

>>3094276
it does. see >>3094285

>>3094035
Where did you take the test?

Online tests are, for the most part, significantly easier, so even if you're of average IQ (~100) you should be able score 120+ on those. I think they were specifically created for catering to special snowflakes.

Talent has many aspects to it just as intelligence is way more than just IQ.

If you go on /ic/ with the random thought of seeking out some art wisdom you certainly don't look promising. Talent is checking /ic/ out and to see what it has to offer and every time you need a specific resource /ic/ can provide you visit /ic/ and seek out the information you need. It's also fine to go on /ic/ if you especially announce that time to be purely entertainment and nothing else. It should never be used as an excuse to pretend you are actually doing something for your art skill when you visit this board.

Talent is to put yourself in the right place at the right time consciously. If you have really high awareness and seriously tried for at least a couple of months, only then I think you can begin to judge if you have talent or not.

File: tanaka.png (687KB, 1280x714px) Image search: [Google]

687KB, 1280x714px

>>3094276
>creative
>IQ
>doesnt count

why are there so few black artists(engineers,architects,designers)? really makes you think...

>>3093013
checks out

Didn't we all agree that talent is absolutely real in the normie sense of the word, the last time this thread was posted? We even had scientific reports showing no correlation between practice and perfomance among experts in a multitude of fields. Let's get a sticky with links to science that shows talent is real, so we don't have to school every retard that wanders into these threads.

>>3094510
>We even had scientific reports showing no correlation between practice and perfomance among experts in a multitude of fields.
Surely this is bait.

>>3094515
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797614535810

next step is you discrediting the science for some reason or other. We've been through this.

The funny thing in this thread is that it's about most people here being around the beginner level discussing it and that's why the topic about talent is not about creating exceptional pieces of a very high level only very few people with high talent will be able to create. This thread is about acquiring the fucking basic skills to draw well.

Give any worthless chink who has nothing in life except for his chink work ethics the task of learning how to draw and given some time he will develop decent technical skills for certain. And before someone gets out and screams "working hard is talent too" I can only say that you're such a low level scrubs that you don't even understand that you are doing it wrong if you need willpower to start working. Everything you need to start putting in the hours can be developed in the forms of habits and mindset.

The real question is, do you worthless sack of shit have the minimal human decencies required to get over your basic human fears to learn the fucking basics before you worry about having the talent to draw your literal dream pictures right out of your imagination at a high technical level? This is the original point of NOT discussing talent in a skill oriented beginner art community. Because every single time a beginner has even just one more thing to worry about while trying to learn he will get slowed down significantly.

>>3094522
And conveniently you can't view the entire research article without paying $35 so you have absolutely no context to what "meta-analyses" they conducted or what their exact definition of deliberate practice or performance is in this context.

>>3094522
>it's another "I take this as a fact without reading the specifics because it's a published paper" guy
What did they test? How did they test it? What meta analysis did they do and how did they acquire the highly specific data needed although it's impossible to do something as a brain scan? How did they follow thousands if nothings hundreds of thousands or millions of individuals trough years and how did they check how they practiced?

This paper is as worthless as the paper describing how some random shit causes cancer because the causation is impossible to isolate without forcing a group of people to live according to a schedule you give them with specific tasks they are required to do while being watched 24/7 for years and years to come.

We live at a highly competitive age where one science paper gets blown the fuck out by a better one on a weekly basis.

>>3094524
>This thread is about acquiring the fucking basic skills to draw well.
Maybe because that's how normies use the term.
Normies will call anyone that can draw talented because they don't believe that you can become good by training a trainable skill and blame it on "talent" that they don't have so they won't have to feel bad about not trying because they wouldn't be able to do it even if they did try.
And then this meme infects beginner artists who are too lazy to try hard themselves and then they'll propagate the talent meme by blaming their own failure on their perceived lack of talent.

>>3094529
It's available on sci-hub. The whole article was posted the last thread. But as you can see in the post below you, posting the whole article won't be anough. There's always something to critize. If it isn't the paywall, it's the article, if more article are posted, it's the science itself.

You can show flat earthers thousands of scientific articles showing the earth is round and they'll find a flaw in every single one. That is the power of delusion, and this thread is no different.

>>3094543
Less than 10% of all science is actually considered to be a fact.

But congratulations, you live in the information age and you have the integrity of a soccer mom when it comes to believing science.

>>3094547
t. flat earther

File: image.jpg (174KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1920x1080px

>>3094543
>>3094540
Just because it's a journal article, it doesn't mean it's reliable. A lot of junior academics are trying to make it by doing a shitload of free work on "research" with retarded topics just to try and get their careers somewhere while seniors cruise on their work. Other times legit studies fail to come up with results but their sponsors want something. Other times they get results but in dumbing the language down to normie/sponsor tier it's couched in something that is completely untrue.

Academic publishing is fucked up.

>>3094035

I'll tell you what my southern grandma told me when everyone found out I was slow.

"bless your heart".

and good luck.

File: inside-a-british-army-tank.jpg (104KB, 386x217px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 386x217px

>>3094274
capital post.

>>3093012
Spbp

>>3094522
>>3094543

Okay so I actually just read the article and as I expected it all came down to how they define "deliberate practice"
Deliberate practice in the article is simply defined as the amount of hours that someone practices something. Nothing else.
Deliberate practice doesn't take into account the intelligence of the person practicing, the method that they practice, how much effort they're putting into practicing. It's just how much.
The entire point of the article is determining if the amount of hours spent doing something is the most important thing to determine how good you are at that or if there are other factors that are at play.
Anyone with half a brain could realize that "how" you practice would have a big impact on how much you improve at a thing. Similarly talent(intelligence) would play a factor as well.

The entire article basically proves that you should "work smarter, not harder", to not mindlessly grind for 16 hours a day rather than put considered effort into learning.

I doubt you even read the article and just saw the summary and thought "Oh yes! Now I can prove those idiots on /ic/ that you're never gonna make it without talent!!!"

>>3094567
also I forgot to mention, the article says that practice is super important anyway

>>3094567
Good work, anon.

>>3094285
it's a different kind and you know it >>3094342
>>3094464
>confirmation bias

>>3094567
lol, keep'em coming
>grabs popcorn

>>3093012
I took an official test back then I just did an online test now and I always get 125.
However, I consider myself to be a dumbass, I'm not the brightest star in the sky at all and even tho I'm already working in the industry, i struggle to learn new art related things. The only good trait I have is discipline.
Maybe the tests are just garbage.

>>3094587
You're probably smarter than you think.
Most people that are actually idiots don't think they are.

>>3094586
There's nothing more to be said.
I doubt I can be disputed.

>>3094586
Do you think anyone reading those posts will believe the point you're trying to make now? You have been entirely discredited and all you have left is trying to get the last word.

>>3094510
>Didn't we all agree
That's not how this website works, newfag.

>>3094593
>there's nothing more to be said
lol, sure. you'll move the goal post as soon as your argument is refuted.

Now, what you are saying is that there is a chance that they did not measure "correct" practice, only practice. You're assuming there is something such as "correct" practice and that practice in the form of "mindless grinding" has very little significance.

You are also assuming that "mindless grinding" would account for 74-99% of the practice being done by these perfomers.

You are also assuming that in the field of proffesionals, the amount of deliberate practice is actually almost entirely "mindless grinding" to account for the discrepancy between practice and perfomance.

All of this is your assumption. You assume that there is a difference in the quality of practice, which is reasonable, but you also assume that the practice being done in this survey is mostly "mindless grinding" to explain why the correlation is so low.

All of those assumptions come from your personal belief that practice correlates with performance, which is the opposite of what this survey finds.

So your suspending the legitimacy of actual scientific results in favor of the small chance that your assumptions happen to be correct and that these perfomers are basically slackers that aren't representative of how practice should be done.

So, are you moving the goal post or sticking to your ridiculous argument?

>>3094597
you're basically doing exactly what I said you would from the first post I wrote. What else can I do than sit back and watch? I know you can't be reasoned with.

>>3094274
Bruckner for instance was borderline retarded tho

>>3094612
He didn't assume any of those things though. He pointed out that quality of practice was not measured and that any deliberate practice stated is merely the time that is invested. He cleared up the deciding factors and therefore cleared up the meaning of the article which was just obvious stuff without much relevance to the topic.

The only one with poor assumptions is you, be it regarding your argument, the content of the science article or the post of that other anon.
>You assume that there is a difference in the quality of practice
Are you seriously doubting the fact that there is good practice and poor practice? This fucking guy.

>>3094622
>You assume that there is a difference in the quality of practice, which is reasonable, but you also assume that the practice being done in this survey is mostly "mindless grinding" to explain why the correlation is so low.

that is what I wrote.

I said it was reasonable.

Also, he assumes that the practice being done in the study is mostly the worthless kind of "mindless grinding". That's his entire argument! that the study has false findings because the practice being done is mostly the worthless kind, hence the low correlation.

>>3094612
The only person assuming here is you.
I didn't say a single thing you think that I did.
I didn't assume a thing about the article, I read it. Maybe you should give it a shot too. But seeing as you're trying to put words in my mouth "assuming" I wrote shit that I didn't tells me that your reading comprehension is pretty sub-par and you probably wouldn't understand the article itself. You might want to practice it sometime, the article itself did vouch for a direct correlation between practice and performance, though I guess you wouldn't know that seeing as you are the way you are. I guess you don't really have much talent for reading then, do you?

>>3094624
you assume it by IMPLICATION.

You didn't say it, but logically it is your assumption ffs.

>>3094623
The lack of reading comprehension you are showing time after time at least explains why you are unable to understand the article you are using as evidence for something you wrongly interpreted.

Hell, I doubt that you are even seriously still believing in it. You're just trying to safe face trough persistence like any generic 4chan cunt that is forced into a corner.

>>3094662
>I doubt that you are even seriously still believing in it. You're just trying to safe face trough persistence
lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/

File: MemoryIsKey.jpg (149KB, 764x551px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 764x551px

>>3094274
Gifted and Talented Honor Society fag here, and I can confirm this is true. I got all A's all the time just by listening to the teacher and doing the homework occasionally while everyone else would say they studied really hard every day but still got B's and Cs. I honestly thought they were retarded because I thought it was incredibly obvious what the answers were because I just remembered what the teacher said..... even though I missed like half of what she was saying because I would always just doodle shit in my notebooks while she talked. Eventually, my grades dropped because I focus more on drawing instead of school, but I still basically approached drawing the same way- Just memorize the concepts and experiment with them so that you don't get cucked when you forget like half of them.

>>3094631
Holy shit you are grasping at straws here.
I didn't assume shit.
It seems you really didn't understand the article at all (this is an assumption) so allow me to spell it out in simple terms.
They got a large amount of participants that had varying levels of skill in different disciplines, estimated the amount of hours that they practiced that discipline (through various means such as keeping a log, interviews etc.) and observed how well they perform at that discipline.

They found QUOTE (Page 5)
>Figure 2 shows that nearly all correlations between deliberate practice and performance were positive: High levels of deliberate practice were associated with high levels of performance. Of the small number of negative correlations (10 of 157), only 2 (< 1.5% of all correlations) were statistically significant (p < .05).

If you couldn't understand that, they said that people with a lot of hours of practice are good at their discipline. There is a direct correlation between hours spent and skill.
However they found that some people with the same amount of hours of practice weren't at the same skill level. This is because they only measured amount of hours and nothing else like how they spent those hours.

Really I could go on but you should just read the article for yourself.

>>3093007
This is a shitpost but I'll respond with my thoughts anyways because I'm dumb.

We all start at the same point, it's just that some people LEARN faster than others. That's what "talent" actually is, an intrinsic ability to absorb, process, and utilize information more efficiently. Even then you still have to grind to achieve peak utilization of that information.

File: 16831100_1137030929740028_3632439493698380403_n.jpg (45KB, 768x960px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 768x960px

>>3094035
>>3094276
>>3094285
>>3094464
this was drawn by the sempai of the guys who taught me to draw.

he's black.

>>3094674
National Gifted and Talented Society and Honor Society*
Sorry, my grammar nazi is showing

>>3094675
>>3094662
I don't give a shit about the study. I don't care at all what it says and I have nothing invested in it. I'm simply fascinated to see your reaction when a scientific study is thrown your way. Half trolling, half intrigued.

Obviously science is flawed, everyone knows that. But the way you sincerely debunk this report is fascinating to watch, when I know that you would do the exact same thing with any other report, as well.

It's like you've investigated the article and come to the conclusion that this report just doesn't hold up to scientific standards, unfortunately. It just can't be taken seriously. LOL!

That would happen to any study posted! That is what I find fascinating. And I couldn't help myself and countered your arguments in frustration, but alas, the study doesn't hold up... lol, what a surprise. I said it in my very first post and it has played out exactly.

>>3094697
Lol looks like he doesn't know how to render tho.
It looks like the whole right side of his body suit is shredded. I didn't see it at first but then I realized that his suit was supposed to be smooth and those were just rim lights with a poorly shaded background making it look like he got cut up on the right side of his left and right legs. Tell your sempai that he needs to learn values and how to not rely on black to render shadows. I

>>3094717
he already has an art job as some animator working on some cartoon movie.

post your work.

>>3094709
Here you go with millions of assumptions again.

We were completely reasonable in every aspect. You stated something we found to be highly suspicious which was the correct instinct since you were full of shit. Then you posted your source, you were allowed to prove your claim. The link couldn't be more vague so we started to ask questions. You didn't provide answers so we checked the original source. The result was that you completely misinterpreted the study - case closed.

There is nothing more or less to it. That's literally what happened. That you are trying to attach the meaning that we would disregard even something completely reasonable is completely irrelevant and out of touch with the reality of the context that is given.

At literally no step

File: O6lv4dd.png (41KB, 755x627px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 755x627px

>>3094709
>But the way you sincerely debunk this report is fascinating to watch
>It's like you've investigated the article and come to the conclusion that this report just doesn't hold up to scientific standards, unfortunately. It just can't be taken seriously.

Okay so I guess I was right about you having terrible reading comprehension.
I didn't "debunk" the article. The article is completely legitimate and has some interesting findings in it. I know this because I read it and understood it.

Also pic related, it's you right now

I have average or slightly below average intelligence but I feel the thing that holds me back is my irrational fear that even though I could reach a lot trough hard work it would mean less if I needed to work way harder for it than people with high intelligence and talent.

Like for example in chess against a person that is way more intelligent than me. I would hate it that I would need to close the gap with training while he just enters with his base stats. Or even if he trains that he would train just a tenth of the time but still be my equal.

I fucking hate this feeling. It's so humiliating. In the end it doesn't matter. In the end it's not as straightforward like I described no matter how big the talent gap is. But man, it's hard to deal with this feeling.

>>3094730
everyone is born as a whining blob of flesh and blood that shits and pisses themselves

some people have faster stat growth, but we still all start at level 0

and if you really apply yourself and really try to understand your craft, your stat growth could very well increase to the same level of supposedly "talented" individuals

it all boils down to determination and an open mind

>>3094721
Totally reasonable. The science just doesn't hold up!

I said that would be your conclusion in the very same post as the one with the link to the article.

It would happen to any article, because I've seen the process play out before.

I posted the article because why not, let's rustle some jimmies and see how they refute it.

Last time the issue was the fact that the fields represented in the study didn't include art. So the study just wasn't applicable. You missed that one, eh?

you can find a flaw in every study ever done, if you are biased. and that is what's happening here. It was never my intention to argue my case, in this thread.

>>3094728
oh, sorry. I could've used a better word. Delete all my posts, please.

>>3094742
It's completely irrelevant how you tried to give yourself insurance by proving some arbitrary point and how this was your true intention. It doesn't hold up either way, mate. We were just in for your science article and not your armchair theory.

>>3094752
yeah, I'm not sure what my point is. I don't think I have one right now.

but to sum it up, you guys are fags that will refute any evidence presented because you don't want talent to be real.

>>3094771

>>3094721
>>3094728

File: 1502363697267.png (1MB, 1015x872px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1015x872px

>>3093007
when you make it into the industry

File: You.gif (2MB, 240x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 240x180px

>>3094771

>There are variables that are vague or not being taken into careful consideration within this article, and it only describes what we know about habits like noodling -
>S-science denier! You just don't want me to be right! My opinion is science so I WIN!

>>3094839
Butch should stick to drawing FOP characters.

>>3094842
you don't know what's been going on here.

File: a061.jpg (344KB, 600x780px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 600x780px

>>3093007

Apparenty for /ic/ "Talent" means being able to draw like Kim Jung Gi. As if it were some kind of magical gift.

But that's not talent.

He simply is Korean and practices. So if you're not Korean you will never, ever make it. Be born again in Korea and maybe you'll have a chance.

https://books.google.no/books?hl=no&lr=&id=tF4VVre_I4MC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=talent+or+practice&ots=NacobSNzbI&sig=2L6BZHNFS_aZC-hDbBeiuVZ0Nsk&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=talent%20or%20practice&f=false

>>3094971
http://www.neurology.org/content/51/4/978.short

>>3094973
http://www.gifted.gr/documents/useful-documents/Gifted_children.pdf

>>3094975
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.4219/jeg-2005-343

people that don't draw call me talented.
other artists call me shit or are indifferent.

i don't think talent means anything

>>3093012
I'd been given an IQ test in elementary school because I was performing better than my peers. I scored 131, and I'd been put in gifted classes for the rest of elementary and middle school.

I'm a shit artist still, 'cuz I've got no discipline. IQ isn't everything.

>>3094995
talent is a meme based on perspective and subjectivity

>>3095005
nice i got 140

oh whats wrong? wow youre petty.

>>3094839
oh lawdy I'm laffin

>>3095043
Yeah well you're pretty

File: proko.wip.jpg (447KB, 675x900px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 675x900px

>>3094720

>>3094945
>be Korean
>KJG
>be Chinese
>Ruan Jia Render Master
>be Japanese
>animu pro
>other asians
???

Hard mode: Asian-American/Foreign Asians

File: gothis.gif (312KB, 500x248px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 500x248px

>>3095385
>asian
>also has good memory according to professors and art tutors
>drew a fucking shoe in 4th grade that got 1st place at a university because it realistic and just a sketch bro
>just wants to draw all day and get enough money to get by
>mfw when I realize I have enough asian autism to become a mangaka

>>3095385
he means east asia aka the goodish ones (sea kys)

>>3095384
Can we stop this shit meme

File: Screenshot_2.jpg (87KB, 304x437px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 304x437px

>>3093007
just kill the competition guys

>>3093007
Why is this same image and question posted every other week?

>>3095747
gets hundreds of replies every time

>>3093007
if you have talent, you know.
when you have to ask yourself if you have it, then you definitely don't.

>>3095752
Yeah, talent is like as natural as breathing air. If you had it, anyone else would notice as well.

>>3093007
You don't?