01-21-2014, 05:13 AM
I would say that talent indeed exists, but there are a couple things about it:)
-it's more of an inclination to some area, really. For example, me and my friend went to the atelier together and he was much more correct when it came to proportions than me, while my drawings were much less stiff than his. And those tendencies are still observable, but much less so, because we progressed (at least a bit lol). Which leads me to my second point
-in the long run, it effectively doesn't matter. Let's simplify things and say that there are 100 level of painting. And let's say that if you're talented, you start with a 5 and some neutral person starts with 0 or 1 maybe. So, like after a month, you get to 10 and that guy gets to, say, 3. You are indeed doing better and you learn faster because you had a headstart, a natural inclination. But, after five years of same intensity and output, he catches up, because the more you progress, the more actual work counts. And not only that, but, the higher your levels are, those starting 4-5 points are making less and less of a difference. At the end, you'll be like level 97 and he'll be 92 or something, which is quite insignificant
-except when, for this reason or the other, we actually need to split hairs:) Which could be observed in, for example sprinting. Let's say Usain Bolt has predispositions to be more successful runner than most of the other people. And he trained hard and now he is faster than other people, even those who worked just as hard as him. But, he isn't running the 100m in 3 secs, while the others do it in 10, it's MUCH more close than that. So, I'll say that, even they all work equally hard and they have similar conditions to train (I'll assume that's the case, for the sake of discussion, it simplifies things), he gets that extra edge because, I don't know, he was born with such and such muscle fibers and his leg to body ratio is such and such etc. And that extra edge is enough to win him a lot of medals because that's how running competitions work. But it's like 0.08 secs difference between those guys.
And if we assume that I am quite untalented for running, if I have trained as much as he was, I would probably be able to run 10something, which is some kind of decent competitive level (maybe I talk nonsense with these numbers, I'm not that into running, but it's just an example).
And with painting, those predispositions are less limiting than with running. Yes, someone sees colors better (we had this girl at the atelier which was CRAZY with noticing color mixes on things - but then again, she couldn't draw like AT ALL:) - and not only that, but, at some point, even I, a complete idiot for that stuff, started to notice that the black isn't really black but, for example, 20% prussian blue, 70% van dyck brown and some olive green and stuff like that, so it's a skill that you acquire and level), someone has better dexterity, someone has better 2d understanding and someone is better at 3d etc. but I think it's all something you can work on quite successfully.
Also, in the atelier, I have seen somewhat lazy talented people progress insanely fast and good for like six months and then they stagnate and then they get passed by others. It can carry you only so far.
Of course, this is just my take on this subject, people may disagree completely.
So, basically, my answer would be "yes", but I don't think that's the right question, as, looking at your post, I choose this paragraph
-it's more of an inclination to some area, really. For example, me and my friend went to the atelier together and he was much more correct when it came to proportions than me, while my drawings were much less stiff than his. And those tendencies are still observable, but much less so, because we progressed (at least a bit lol). Which leads me to my second point
-in the long run, it effectively doesn't matter. Let's simplify things and say that there are 100 level of painting. And let's say that if you're talented, you start with a 5 and some neutral person starts with 0 or 1 maybe. So, like after a month, you get to 10 and that guy gets to, say, 3. You are indeed doing better and you learn faster because you had a headstart, a natural inclination. But, after five years of same intensity and output, he catches up, because the more you progress, the more actual work counts. And not only that, but, the higher your levels are, those starting 4-5 points are making less and less of a difference. At the end, you'll be like level 97 and he'll be 92 or something, which is quite insignificant
-except when, for this reason or the other, we actually need to split hairs:) Which could be observed in, for example sprinting. Let's say Usain Bolt has predispositions to be more successful runner than most of the other people. And he trained hard and now he is faster than other people, even those who worked just as hard as him. But, he isn't running the 100m in 3 secs, while the others do it in 10, it's MUCH more close than that. So, I'll say that, even they all work equally hard and they have similar conditions to train (I'll assume that's the case, for the sake of discussion, it simplifies things), he gets that extra edge because, I don't know, he was born with such and such muscle fibers and his leg to body ratio is such and such etc. And that extra edge is enough to win him a lot of medals because that's how running competitions work. But it's like 0.08 secs difference between those guys.
And if we assume that I am quite untalented for running, if I have trained as much as he was, I would probably be able to run 10something, which is some kind of decent competitive level (maybe I talk nonsense with these numbers, I'm not that into running, but it's just an example).
And with painting, those predispositions are less limiting than with running. Yes, someone sees colors better (we had this girl at the atelier which was CRAZY with noticing color mixes on things - but then again, she couldn't draw like AT ALL:) - and not only that, but, at some point, even I, a complete idiot for that stuff, started to notice that the black isn't really black but, for example, 20% prussian blue, 70% van dyck brown and some olive green and stuff like that, so it's a skill that you acquire and level), someone has better dexterity, someone has better 2d understanding and someone is better at 3d etc. but I think it's all something you can work on quite successfully.
Also, in the atelier, I have seen somewhat lazy talented people progress insanely fast and good for like six months and then they stagnate and then they get passed by others. It can carry you only so far.
Of course, this is just my take on this subject, people may disagree completely.
So, basically, my answer would be "yes", but I don't think that's the right question, as, looking at your post, I choose this paragraph
Quote:all that matters is hard work, passion, love and how much you want the thing. What makes a student be better is self motivation and practice and how you learn form the many mistakes you have made.So, my answer would have to be a bit more elaborate, something like "Talent exists, but it's significance in becoming a skillful artist can be completely disregarded in the end".